|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 17, 2013, 12:32 PM | #301 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Unfortunately, we have John Marshall to blame for all of this. In writing McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall pumped a previously unheard of elasticity into the Constitution, which has confounded us to this day.
Last edited by csmsss; April 17, 2013 at 12:48 PM. |
April 17, 2013, 12:32 PM | #302 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Kochman, your argument is really not that different from the old, "If you are going to be raped, you may as well lie back and enjoy it."
Just because things have happened, that does not mean we have to like it, nor does that mean we have to just let it keep happening or refrain from trying to reverse the trend. |
April 17, 2013, 12:33 PM | #303 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 12:34 PM | #304 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
A wise man said, "pick your battles"...
|
April 17, 2013, 12:47 PM | #305 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 12:47 PM | #306 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Kochman,
It's a logical progression. There are only two possible outcomes. 1)The powers of the government are not limited by the COTUS. Therefore, they change and evolve with time. Therefore, they are, for all intents and purposes, unlimited. Therefore, the COTUS is pointless as it sets no limits. Why bother spelling out a bunch of powers and limits that don't actual set any powers or limits? 2)The government is limited by the powers enumerated in the COTUS. End. All you really need do is read the document and take it for what it says. Don't add meaning, don't bring tortured interpretations that make it mean what you hope it means. Read it. It says things like, "The Congress shall have Power To..." and it goes into a big, long list. If Congress can do whatever they want to do, what is the purpose of this list? They must be limited by the enumerated powers or they have no limit. There is no in-between. You're absolutely right, by the way, that the reality on the ground is no where close to what I describe (and the Founders described) as what the United States is supposed to be. BUT, we are multi-taskers. We can be aware of the current situation, work within the current system and still have a goal to return the system to it's intended state. We do not accept that because it is the way it is, we must "live with it" and "get real". The goal is always to restore proper constitutional authority and conditions.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 17, 2013, 12:49 PM | #307 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
There is a third choice Brian. That the scope of that list changes over time as various attempts to restrict and push the boundaries of what is "legal" occur over time, and the powers of the federal and state governments fluctuate over time. Theoretically in a delayed synch with the ebb and flow of which political party is in power at the time.
|
April 17, 2013, 01:01 PM | #308 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
But that's really no limit, Jim. It's just not "unlimited" at any given moment in time. There might be limits at the moment, but there are no limits for what might be tomorrow. Ultimately, there are no limits under that scenario.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 17, 2013, 01:05 PM | #309 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
If allowed to run unchecked yes. But we have, historically, been at least decent at reining ourselves in. It may take a while, but we do eventually get it right.
|
April 17, 2013, 01:10 PM | #310 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 01:11 PM | #311 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Yet what both you and Kochman suggest, instead of a reining in, is to allow more momentum to be built toward federal expansion.
|
April 17, 2013, 01:33 PM | #312 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
At the top of the L&CR forum, there's Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer. Take a look, why don't you? I get the impression you have not done so. Let's go back to that Preamble you wanted to talk about. There was actually a big debate at the Constitutional Convention over how the Con should start. Obviously, the winning phrase was: Quote:
Anyway, the Articles of the Constitution are specific grants of power. They tell us exactly what powers the federal government has. It was intended to be a government of limited power, just as the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. (State courts are considered courts of general jurisdiction.) The Articles define exactly what powers are granted to the federal government, with certain powers reserved to the States or the People. The Bill of Rights, however, are limitations on power. Note how the Articles say "X shall have the power of," while the Amendments speak in terms of "gov't shall not encroach on Y." So powers that are "just understood," could also be called "imaginary" or "unfounded." Now, on to this: Quote:
Whether the federal government is lawfully empowered to mandate that is an entirely separate question. However, it being "for the common good," is not enough to support that claim. Further, it's really not clear that such a law is intended for the common good, nor that it would further it. Quote:
Quote:
Nothing, nada, zero, zip, zilch. I don't think citizens should have to pay to exercise rights guaranteed to them by the Bill of Rights. Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
April 17, 2013, 01:41 PM | #313 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
A CNN tally of senators indicated the measure was probably in trouble unless several undecided Democrats and Republicans -- mostly from conservative states -- ended up supporting it.It seems reasonable to infer that these undecided Senators (and those, like Sen. Ayotte (R-NH), who are now coming out against it), are influenced by what their constituents are telling them; most of us have been quite diligent in this regard. This is looking more and more like a battle we can win. It seems perverse to suggest that to do so would be unwise, unless you yourself are committed to the proposition that universal background checks are a good idea.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. Last edited by Evan Thomas; April 17, 2013 at 04:57 PM. |
|
April 17, 2013, 01:45 PM | #314 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) |
|
April 17, 2013, 01:46 PM | #315 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
One thing we should all keep in the backs of our minds - assuming this bill fails (which certainly appears likely), we can expect to see the failure used to justify some outrageous gun-control end-runs implemented (or attempted to be implemented) administratively.
|
April 17, 2013, 01:50 PM | #316 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 01:56 PM | #317 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
So...you're citing cases that are over forty years old as evidence that we are "reining things in" ? Seriously?
|
April 17, 2013, 01:59 PM | #318 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
April 17, 2013, 02:01 PM | #319 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
You asked for examples of times we've done so. To furnish that information, I picked another highly controversial time, and the controversial amendment/issue of the day. In this case the first amendment, and protections of association and speech mostly as regards the Red Scare. Those cases cited are examples of when we pulled the infringing of the first amendment back. i.e. from the Clear and Present Danger test in Schenck v United States, to the Bad Tendency to finally, in Brandenburg, the imminent lawless acts test.
|
April 17, 2013, 02:06 PM | #320 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 02:16 PM | #321 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I find the idea that the power of the federal government has been "reigned in" to be amusing, at best.
A single incident or two where power was regained by the people hardly counts as "reigning in". I see a barn with the doors wide open and 49 of 50 horse stalls are empty, the sounds of hooves retreating in the distance still audible, with one stable boy standing with his arms outstretched, keeping the 50th horse in it's stall while yelling over his shoulder "Don' worry boss! I've got 'em reigned in!" The power of the federal government has been anything and everything BUT reigned in. It has grown endlessly and incessantly, with nothing more than the tiniest blip to slow it along the way.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 17, 2013, 02:16 PM | #322 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 14, 2013
Location: Erph
Posts: 110
|
Pick your battles wasn't in reference to this bill...
It was in reference to those wanting the COTUS to be read at the strictest, and as a stand alone document, with nothing but Amendments allowed at the federal level. |
April 17, 2013, 02:22 PM | #323 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
As I see it, we're just trying to hold our ground where and how possible. |
|
April 17, 2013, 02:27 PM | #324 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 17, 2013, 02:32 PM | #325 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
And yet, Kochman, the bar is supposed to be very high for the feds to be able to introduce new federal powers, including expansions of existing ones.
We should fight toward a goal of bringing federal government back in line with what the Constitution intended it to be. This was such a losing cause that it resulted in the election and reelection of Ronald Reagan... Pendulums swing, of course, but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try to damp the amplitude, nor to try to push back. What you suggest with regard to this bill, specifically, is to voluntarily cede more power to the feds, when they have already grabbed too much power; what you suggest is to voluntarily accept more restrictions against individual liberties and property rights - and in this specific case, those restrictions run counter to Constitutional protections. You suggest we should think this is the only reasonable and responsible option. JimDandy, you say there is no harm in the bill, since the 4473 system exists anyway, and it just gives the State a chance to act on prior due process. Except that we have already established that a significant percentage of holds get overturned, eventually, so they are either no longer valid or they were never valid in the first place. I ask what benefit comes from the bill? If you say that it could save lives, I counter that allowing the feds to grow, unfettered, can ultimately result in more loss of life; I would further argue that if avoidance of any casualties were the highest virtue, we might as well disband the military. Cold as it may sound, some things are more important than X number of shooting victims; preventing the government Leviathan from expanding beyond all control is one of those things I think is more important. But that is beside the point, because you haven't made the case that all those stopped sales actually prevented any murders. You infer that they must have; yet you disregard the other potential inference, which is that systemic stops and delays may have resulted in fatal harms to victims of stalkers and domestic violence. In other words, you can't prove that there have actually been lives saved; all you can prove is that there have been transactions stopped. And so far, neither of you have actually established what number of those transactions stopped should have been considered valid, nor what number were no longer valid, nor what number were never valid. I'm not sure how you can argue minimal harms, when you fail to quantify the harms. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|