Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 01 Jun '09 01:37
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    So has the First Amendment which has the word "no" before "law".

    The Second Amendment is poorly drafted. Personally, I don't worry too much about the specific wording in the Bill of Rights; after all, the Framers didn't think the BOR was really necessary and they were inserted purely for political reasons. We'd have no less fundamental righ ...[text shortened]... there was no BOR.

    I believe that Heller got the right result.
    The amendments, and Constitution is general may seem awkward by modern usage standards. That means there may be a need to extract "original intent" based on contemporary writings, and the debates at the Convention.

    It is not true that the Framers thought the BOR to be unnecessary. It was a matter of considerable debate, much as a 5 - 4 SCOTUS decision.

    In any case, the BOR is a part of the Constitution, as much as any later amendments. The only legitimate method of altering them is another amendment, certainly not by lawyerly arguments.
  2. 01 Jun '09 01:39
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    You did notice that the 14th Amendment was passed in the meantime, didn't you? And Congress has been allowed to pass laws regarding all the matters in the First Amendment.

    You know the answer to those questions. And you know the Ninth Amendment specifically states that there are other rights "retained by the people". Contrary to Robert Bork, the 9th wasn't mere verbiage.
    Robert Bork was a major supporter of the 9th in reality. His remark was that in practice it has been virtually ignored by legislature, and the courts.
  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Jun '09 01:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Robert Bork was a major supporter of the 9th in reality. His remark was that in practice it has been virtually ignored by legislature, and the courts.
    BS. He denied there were any non-textual rights in direct contravention to the 9th Amendment.
  4. 01 Jun '09 01:41
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Hysterical nonsense.
    That isn't an argument.
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Jun '09 01:49
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The amendments, and Constitution is general may seem awkward by modern usage standards. That means there may be a need to extract "original intent" based on contemporary writings, and the debates at the Convention.

    It is not true that the Framers thought the BOR to be unnecessary. It was a matter of considerable debate, much as a 5 - 4 SCOTUS decisio ...[text shortened]... legitimate method of altering them is another amendment, certainly not by lawyerly arguments.
    James Madison, who submitted the BOR, said so as did Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. "Contemporary writings and the debates at the Convention" which you deem sooooooooooooooo important, hardly leave this in doubt.

    "Original intent" is insufficient when the text itself clearly leaves room for interpretation. What is a "cruel and unusual punishment" for example? What's an "unreasonable search"? Or "probable cause"? In truth, the evidence seems clear that the Framers did not believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution, at least in many areas. Their "original intent" was to have a flexible document.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    01 Jun '09 01:50
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That isn't an argument.
    No, it's a factual statement to describe the rubbish you wrote. The judicial branch always has been the weakest branch of government and continues to be so.
  7. 01 Jun '09 01:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    BS. He denied there were any non-textual rights in direct contravention to the 9th Amendment.
    About ten years ago, I heard Bork in a live interview regarding his view on the 9th and 10th.

    He lamented that the text of both amendments had been virtually ignored by the Courts and Congress for most of our history. Bork believed in the exact text of the ninth and tenth, just as he did the direct textual interpretation of the rest. It was his opposition to the "living document" that got him "borked".

    Both the ninth and tenth are severely limiting of Federal government power.
  8. 01 Jun '09 01:58
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, it's a factual statement to describe the rubbish you wrote. The judicial branch always has been the weakest branch of government and continues to be so.
    Please, the court has made legal and cultural changes which could not have been done by the executive or legislative branches. It has from early on, usurped power never intended, from Marbury v. Madison onward.

    SCOTUS was never intended to bypass the amendment process to alter the written Constitution.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Jun '09 02:12 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    James Madison, who submitted the BOR, said so as did Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. "Contemporary writings and the debates at the Convention" which you deem sooooooooooooooo important, hardly leave this in doubt.

    "Original intent" is insufficient when the text itself clearly leaves room for interpretation. What is a "cruel and unusual punishment" ...[text shortened]... n, at least in many areas. Their "original intent" was to have a flexible document.
    "It is our task, as I see it, not to enter the minds of the Members of Congress -- who need have nothing in mind in order for their votes to be both lawful and effective -- but rather to give fair and reasonable meaning to the text of the United States Code, adopted by various Congresses at various times."

    - Antonin Scalia, Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 30 (1989).
  10. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    01 Jun '09 02:16
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Please, the court has made legal and cultural changes which could not have been done by the executive or legislative branches. It has from early on, usurped power never intended, from Marbury v. Madison onward.
    Federalist 78 makes it pretty clear that judicial review was anticipated before the Constitution was written.

    http://www.landmarkcases.org/marbury/judicialpower.html
  11. 04 Jun '09 02:43
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    James Madison, who submitted the BOR, said so as did Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. "Contemporary writings and the debates at the Convention" which you deem sooooooooooooooo important, hardly leave this in doubt.

    "Original intent" is insufficient when the text itself clearly leaves room for interpretation. What is a "cruel and unusu ...[text shortened]... n, at least in many areas. Their "original intent" was to have a flexible document.
    they intended that 200 years later judges would bend the words to match whatever they wanted? what did they say about cruel and unusual punishment back then? could have froze the status quo at that point.
  12. 17 Aug '09 02:09
    http://tinyurl.com/pfqanw

    The Other 'Hispanic' Nominee

    Larry Elder
    Thu Aug 13, 3:00 am ET

    ...

    Let's talk about the obstacles, adversity and disadvantages of another Hispanic nominee, one whom many thought — pre-Sotomayor — worthy of future consideration as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

    Born in Honduras — the child of a broken home — this nominee immigrated to the United States at 17 years of age, arriving with a limited command of the English language. The nominee's mother spoke no English. But four years later, the nominee graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a bachelor's degree from Columbia University. The nominee went on to Harvard Law School, served as editor of the Harvard Law Review and received a Juris Doctor degree magna cum laude.

    The nominee served as a clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, practiced law in New York, and then served as an assistant U.S. attorney, later joining the Justice Department as an assistant to the solicitor general for the Clinton administration.

    Overcoming personal adversity? The nominee's spouse died from an accidental overdose of alcohol and sleeping pills, after the couple had suffered through a miscarriage.

    The American Bar Association — whose evaluation was once hailed as "the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged," by Senate Judiciary Committee member (and current chairman) Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. — unanimously gave the nominee its top "well-qualified" rating. Yet the nominee — despite an admirable record of overcoming personal and professional "obstacles" and "adversity" — met with a hailstorm of opposition, including a filibuster to prevent an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

    The Senate only had 55 votes to end the filibuster, but it requires 60 votes to end one. If the Democrats had allowed a full vote, the nominee would have had enough Senate votes to reach confirmation. After all, Clarence Thomas only got 52 votes for his confirmation. Finally, because of fierce opposition by Democratic senators — including the lengthy, seven-month filibuster staged as a procedure-delaying tactic to deny a full Senate confirmation vote — the nominee withdrew in 2003. "This should serve as a wake-up call to the White House that it cannot simply expect the Senate to rubber-stamp judicial nominees," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

    The nominee was Miguel Estrada.

    Then-President George W. Bush, in 2001, nominated him to the prestigious U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Had Estrada secured the nomination — and had Republicans retained the White House in 2008 — many would have placed Estrada on the list of possible future Supreme Court justices. He, not Sotomayor, could have become that court's first Hispanic justice. Instead, the "minority-sensitive" Democrats treated him like a child molester. One staff strategy memo sent to Sen. Durbin in 2001 — when the Democrats ran the Senate Judiciary Committee — called Estrada "especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino (emphasis added), and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

    ...
  13. 17 Aug '09 02:36
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://tinyurl.com/pfqanw

    The Other 'Hispanic' Nominee

    Larry Elder
    Thu Aug 13, 3:00 am ET

    ...

    Let's talk about the obstacles, adversity and disadvantages of another Hispanic nominee, one whom many thought — pre-Sotomayor — worthy of future consideration as the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice.

    Born in Honduras — the child of a broken ho ...[text shortened]... ite House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

    ...
    I agree with you, that was HUGE and a testament to the potential smart political moves the Republicans can make to appeal to Hispanics/Latinos.

    Certainly it is not a benefit for the Hispanic electorate to be locked up by the Democrats.