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.
In terms of consistency as well, hasn't it been established that all of the amendments were meant to RESTRICT the power of GOVERNMENT over the people's rights.
Wouldn't it seem strange (and of course, convenient for some of you) to interpret all but the second amendment as such, but that somehow the second amendment is different and restricts the right of the people.
Just inconsistent, is all.
The Second Amendment is inconsistent. It contains a proem.
So what? The Bill of Rights is what we're talking about here and it says what it says, not what you want it to say
Actually, it says whatever you get by applying the well established common law rules of construction that existed at the time the Constitution was made.
Actually, it says whatever you get by applying the well established common law rules of construction that existed at the time the Constitution was made.
LOL! You really can't write a post without using that phrase, can you? You're like an eight year old who just learned his new favorite word, and uses it at every possible opportunity.
Ok, flash. Apply your WECLROC to the following. Translate it into regular, modern day plain english for us. Tell us exactly what the founding fathers meant by it, according to your "rules of construction", since it apparently (according to you) doesn't mean what it says:
Quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
LOL! You really can't write a post without using that phrase, can you? You're like an eight year old who just learned his new favorite word, and uses it at every possible opportunity.
Ok, flash. Apply your WECLROC to the following. Translate it into regular, modern day plain english for us. Tell us exactly what the founding fathers meant by it, according to your "rules of construction", since it apparently (according to you) doesn't mean what it says:
Why don't you apply the rules and then publish your construction here. You need to learn the rules and need to practice applying them. Why don't you start with the words "right" and "people?"
Why don't you apply the rules and then publish your construction here. You need to learn the rules and need to practice applying them. Why don't you start with the words "right" and "people?"
No no no... YOU are the one hammering on this. I'm not going to let you get away with shifting goal posts or diverting the attention you've drawn to yourself. We all know you've backed yourself into a corner - it's up to you to get out of it.
Let's see your interpretation of the selection I quoted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go find it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
No no no... YOU are the one hammering on this. I'm not going to let you get away with shifting goal posts or diverting the attention you've drawn to yourself. We all know you've backed yourself into a corner - it's up to you to get out of it.
Let's see your interpretation of the selection I quoted. Here it is again, so you don't have to go find it:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You're the one who wants it interpreted by applying the rules of construction.
You're the one who wants it interpreted by applying the rules of construction.
Wrong. I know what it says. You're claiming that it doesn't mean what it says. If you want to be taken seriously and your position to have any weight whatsoever, you have to validate it. Validate away...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Wrong. I know what it says. You're claiming that it doesn't mean what it says. If you want to be taken seriously and your position to have any weight whatsoever, you have to validate it. Validate away...
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
We all know what it says, dude. The problem is figuring out what it means. How do you think we should go about ascertaining what it means? Should we apply an objective set of rules and principles or just let each person apply whatever method flies out of his butt?
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.