Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for the Second Amendment, an originalist (or those herein that think they are) should ask: When the Framers wrote 'people', whom did they mean?
One problem I have with originalist, is that they tend to cherry-pick those Framers they wish to use to bolster any argument.
If one reads about the history of the Constitutional Convention, one discovers that you had 55 men, of various backgrounds and with various opinions. It is, to my mind, next to impossible to say "This is what the Framers meant" on any particular language, since the language was virtually always reached by compromise. Indeed, you had Framers that disliked a lot of the wording of the Constitution. May we only use their 'original' viewpoint?
I will note that in the Heller opinion, by Justice Scalia, he went back to sources indicating that the Second Amendment allowed for individuals to own handguns, despite Washington D.C.'s law otherwise (heretofore, the Court, which rarely addressed the Second, usually found that States may impose their own rules regarding gun ownership). When discussing the Militia language, Justice Scalia again cited several Framers, although on dissent, Justice Stephens pointed out contrary opinions by other Framers. Scalia prevailed, since four other Justices joined his opinion.
As for my question above, 'people' appears to have only meant white males. It was obviously not meant to include slaves (or free Blacks), and probably not even white women. We now recognize, liberal that we are, that the Second Amendment applies to all. We are going, perhaps, against the original intent of said language.
Indeed. Furthermore, we ignore the "well regulated militia" language and skip right to the "keep and bear arms" language, tacking on "carry" to that even though there is no specific mention of "carry" or "conceal."
Obviously, it'd be hard to "keep" or "bear" if you cannot carry, but we consistently demonstrate (as a society) that we are good with interpreting the Constitution ourselves (women and minorities can own guns now), so I think this is what the framers wanted. A flexible document. Not an iron-clad edict.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Schools don't teach the Constitution or Civics anymore. It's intentional.
Some do. My son went to high school in the US and took an AP Government class. Just this morning he commented that they taught the what but not the why of the Constitution.
You love the 10th ammendment until a republican becomes president.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Once a republican becomes president ..... F---, the 10th ammendment
I see a lot of libs getting hung up on this.
No ONE is askting OR forcing these cities/ states to do the feds work as many suggest.
BUT, they ARE OBLIGATED to follow FED LAW.
It is ILLEGAL to harbor, assist or KNOWINGLY help in ANY way an illegal alien.
Today's growing number of radicalized liberals have been demonstrating less and less respect for the Constitution, nd even to duly passed Federal, state and local laws when those laws conflict with the leftist ideology. See "sanctuary cities", burning and destroying city streets in anti-Trump and BLM riots, etc.
What exactly ARE these people loyal to? What agenda DO they carefully follow, through thick and thin?
-----------------------------------------------
They are loyal to liberal media. They don't think for themselves nor to they feel, they simply are the playthings of the Democratic Party and liberal media. The puppets that do their bidding.
As for the Second Amendment, an originalist (or those herein that think they are) should ask: When the Framers wrote 'people', whom did they mean?
One problem I have with originalist, is that they tend to cherry-pick those Framers they wish to use to bolster any argument.
If one reads about the history of the Constitutional Convention, one discovers that you had 55 men, of various backgrounds and with various opinions. It is, to my mind, next to impossible to say "This is what the Framers meant" on any particular language, since the language was virtually always reached by compromise. Indeed, you had Framers that disliked a lot of the wording of the Constitution. May we only use their 'original' viewpoint?
I will note that in the Heller opinion, by Justice Scalia, he went back to sources indicating that the Second Amendment allowed for individuals to own handguns, despite Washington D.C.'s law otherwise (heretofore, the Court, which rarely addressed the Second, usually found that States may impose their own rules regarding gun ownership). When discussing the Militia language, Justice Scalia again cited several Framers, although on dissent, Justice Stephens pointed out contrary opinions by other Framers. Scalia prevailed, since four other Justices joined his opinion.
As for my question above, 'people' appears to have only meant white males. It was obviously not meant to include slaves (or free Blacks), and probably not even white women. We now recognize, liberal that we are, that the Second Amendment applies to all. We are going, perhaps, against the original intent of said language.
Of course there was different opinions BUT, in the end they compromised and SIGNED a document giving us our Constitution and the Bill or rights.
Because some disagreed on a particular "right" does NOT mean we should follow their opinions BEFORE they agreed on the final wording.
The FINAL wording is what COUNTS and they SIGNED IT which is giving their APPROVAL.
Indeed. Furthermore, we ignore the "well regulated militia" language and skip right to the "keep and bear arms" language, tacking on "carry" to that even though there is no specific mention of "carry" or "conceal."
Obviously, it'd be hard to "keep" or "bear" if you cannot carry, but we consistently demonstrate (as a society) that we are good with interpreting the Constitution ourselves (women and minorities can own guns now), so I think this is what the framers wanted. A flexible document. Not an iron-clad edict.
If it was flexible in the way you are describing there would be no need to come up with a way to amend it.
No ONE is askting OR forcing these cities/ states to do the feds work as many suggest.
BUT, they ARE OBLIGATED to follow FED LAW.
It is ILLEGAL to harbor, assist or KNOWINGLY help in ANY way an illegal alien.
If illegals wore "illegal" on their chest this would be a more valid point. Again, the courts have ruled, it's not the job of anyone to determine the legal status of anyone other than the Federal government. A state can't make that determination.
Since they can not and our legal system is one of innocent until proven guilty a city or state must assume everyone is here legally.
Quote:
The law has been posted on here over and over.
You might want to look it up ans READ IT!
I have and I just explained why it has no standing here.
Two words to conservatives about observing their Constitutional duty - Merrick Garland.
Two words for you, The Constitution.
Back up your claim and SHOW us WHERE in the Constitution the repubs in the Senate did NOT follow their "observing their Constitutional duty" as you claim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... Right??? 
