Manipulation of the Constitution: Freedom of religion and speech.

Author: fauxlaw

Posts

Total: 29
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
SCOTUS, in any generation of its 230-year history, has always managed to manipulate interpretation of the Constitution; mostly to their detriment [Both the Constitution and SCOTUS]. Take the first amendment. Its very first commentary deals with freedom of religion. it must have been important to founders, namely James Madison, to mention it first. We often refer to Jefferson, who was not the author, by the way, as offering us the language of "separation," as in of church and state.  However, at the time, Jefferson was separated from both church and state while our ambassador to France when Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. But, the full descriptive of freedom of religion enjoins Congress to be forbidden to create a religion in the first place [the "establishment" clause] AND to not forbid practice of its free exercise.

The religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? You think that's what Madison had in mind, who was the primary author of the Constitution?

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
did you watch the interview of the N.J. governor?  he was asked about his orders violating the constitution and where he got the authority to do that (paraphrasing)  His answer was that it was above his pay grade.
Let the lawsuits begin!!
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,501
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
even in recent years the court hijacked the meaning of the second amendment. if you look at conservative judges back as recent as the reagan years, you'll see they interpreted it to protect militia, not an individual right to a gun. all you have to do is look at the lack of any evidence at all that the amendment protects an individual right, back when the amendment was passed. every other amendment has clear purpose in the legislative history, but there's no mention of self defense or hunting or any of that for the second amendment. other than a skewed interpretation, there's no evidence for individual rights to a gun outside a militia. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@n8nrgmi
then explain how individuals can purchase, own and carry firearms?  You keep beating that dead horse don't ya, you need a new hobby.

District of Columbia vHeller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

yet again scholars and legal minds have reached this conclusion along with evidence of practice, precedence and writings other than the constitution.

the right to life obviously means defense otherwise there would be no right to life if you can't defend it, I mean come on seriously?

we've been down this road so many times before, there's nothing new to discuss so why bother?
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
Consider that we have 27 amendments. Fully 8 of them, almost 1/3, have tried to address just voting, and it still is not clear. 
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Read of it, but did not see the video. Yeah, and this will demonstrate, once again, why a bus filled with lawyers going over a cliff is a good start.
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,501
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i'm just bored right now, so felt the need to debate a dead horse topic, by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation. 

there is a right to self defense, but that's a ninth amendment thing. you could extend that right to the use of a gun, but it's still a ninth amendment thing, not second. i notice you didn't post any evidence that the founders meant to protect an individual right to a gun. you can't, because there isn't any
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun
No, the 2A doesn't offer the right to just own a gun. It doesn't mention guns, does it? What it mentions is the right to bear ARMS, and, lest you point it out, that does not mean we must avoid long-sleeve shirts.

Arms are a non-specific description of weapons, not just guns. As such, the inclusion of guns is a given, but includes knives, bows and arrows, and, I suppose, rocks. It does not include nuclear weapons because they are classified, meaning unavailable to ordinary citizens. Further, the 2A stipulates we have the right to bear [own and use] arms, and not be infringed by Congress from doing so. Nor does it imply that only if we are in a militia is that right given. It is given so that, if required, we may be part of a militia. That looks like evidence to me.

TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@fauxlaw
oh I thought that arms were the things that hung by my side, connected to my shoulders dur-hur
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,298
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo.

I must have missed that one, when was public prayer outlawed?
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation. 
<br>
Even using the militia interpretation, citizens can only form a militia if they have access to guns.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
A militia armed with sticks and stones is still a militia if they intend to utilize those sticks and stones for military purposes..
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
when was public prayer outlawed?

Two Supreme Court decisions: Engel v. Vitale [1962], and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963]


I

Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,298
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I must have misunderstood. I thought when you said public prayer was outlawed that you were saying that it was made illegal.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
A militia armed with sticks and stones is still a militia if they intend to utilize those sticks and stones for military purposes..

But that wasn’t the intention of the a The Founding Fathers. Militia meant Americans with firearms.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Let's not pretend anyone knows the intentions of the founding fathers to exact detail.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
Let's not pretend anyone knows the intentions of the founding fathers to exact detail.

Are you claiming that to the Founding Fathers arms meant sticks and stones? Cause that’s delusional lol.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't be applying any extra meaning as to what a militia is. I used the sticks and stones example to demonstrate that a militia is "type of arms" agnostic. A militia is generally a military force raised from civilians, regardless of what arms they carry, or whether or not they even currently carry arms.

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,153
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I watched the Tucker interview. It's shocking.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't be applying any extra meaning as to what a militia is. I used the sticks and stones example to demonstrate that a militia is "type of arms" agnostic. A militia is generally a military force raised from civilians, regardless of what arms they carry, or whether or not they even currently carry arms.

To form a militia you have to have weapons open to the public. Unless you classify those weapons as sticks and stones, there’s no justification for banning guns. The Court has made it very clear that to form a militia arms are needed. Banning arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
To form a militia you have to have weapons open to the public. 
Not really. A government could distribute arms to a militia for example.

Unless you classify those weapons as sticks and stones, there’s no justification for banning guns. The Court has made it very clear that to form a militia arms are needed. Banning arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Discussing an interpretation of the 2a has nothing to with banning guns.

ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Not really. A government could distribute arms to a militia for example.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government out of it....


Discussing an interpretation of the 2a has nothing to with banning guns.
Its not an interpretation if that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted lol. They wanted people to have guns lol.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government out of it....
It was an example. The point was that a militia is not predicated on being armed or having weapons open to the public

Its not an interpretation if that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted lol. They wanted people to have guns lol.
If it were so clear cut and dry as to what the founding fathers wanted, there wouldn't be a debacle over what the 2a means.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
It was an example. The point was that a militia is not predicated on being armed or having weapons open to the public
Then a militia is simply a group of people lol. Without weapons you can’t have a militia.

If it were so clear cut and dry as to what the founding fathers wanted, there wouldn't be a debacle over what the 2a means.
Because Democrats don’t like the way 2nd Amendment, so they create a narrative based on emotion rather than the intention of the Founding Fathers which was very clear: Americans should have guns. And this interpretation is common in various Federalist Papers and as a result has been upheld in the Supreme Court today.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,081
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@ILikePie5
Then a militia is simply a group of people lol. Without weapons you can’t have a militia.
Nah. If militia are miltary forces, and military forces have applications outside of shooting guns at people, militia also have applications outside of shooting guns at people. Hence arms are not a requirement for being militia

Because Democrats don’t like the way 2nd Amendment, so they create a narrative based on emotion rather than the intention of the Founding Fathers which was very clear: Americans should have guns. And this interpretation is common in various Federalist Papers and as a result has been upheld in the Supreme Court today.
No, that's your incorrect interpretation of democratic positions. The opposite and equally ridiculous assertion is that Republicans love the 2nd amendment so much that any and all interpretation of the 2nd amendment is skewed towards as free ownership of guns as possible.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 11,956
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@dustryder
Nah. If militia are miltary forces, and military forces have applications outside of shooting guns at people, militia also have applications outside of shooting guns at people. Hence arms are not a requirement for being militia
You’re contradicting yourself. A militia can shoot guns and do other things are the same time. But shooting guns is a the part that’s a must.

No, that's your incorrect interpretation of democratic positions. The opposite and equally ridiculous assertion is that Republicans love the 2nd amendment so much that any and all interpretation of the 2nd amendment is skewed towards as free ownership of guns as possible.
The Republicans want what the Founding Fathers want. The Constitution should be interpreted as it was written with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

”The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson

”A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

“To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms…  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams






fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,582
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Well documented argument. I agree 100%.
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
Reminds me of a saying i heard. "Locks arent meant to keep out dishonest people, but to keep honest people honest"  same concept with guns.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,153
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Melcharaz
Good fences make good neighbors.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
‘Stay where you are until our backs are turned!’
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, ‘Good fences make good neighbors.’