chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 9, 2012 11:57:02 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is supposed to be above partisan politics, but for a very long time, the Justices nominated by the President have been highly partisan one way or the other.
I see this as an American problem, both Democrats and Republicans do this as a matter of policy.
Is there any way to change it?
And if we did, just how should we pick justices.
I dont think elections are a good way (judging from how well we are doing with other offices)
How is it possible to pick a non-partisan court (what can that even mean?)
They all uphold the Constitution (as they see it) there are just so many ways to see the same facts.
Charlie
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 9, 2012 12:16:16 GMT -5
I would favor a panel of judges randomly selected from members of the 12th regional circuit, from the 94 judicial districts which would have the power to review and unseat any justice that is demonstrably attempting to incorrectly define or (re-define) constitutional or federal law.
As you noted Charlie, "They all uphold the Constitution (as they see it)" If a justice renders an opinion that is seen by any side as being politically motivated as opposed to impartial discernment of the constitution and the federal laws, an appeal could be made, and decided by a group of qualified judges. There has to be a watchdog at all top levels of government.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Apr 9, 2012 13:40:17 GMT -5
I don't think it's possible to pick impartial judges due to human frailty and the fact that when being vetted for the job, they all pretty much tell whoppers about their ability to be impartial. Lets face it, every human being has a point of view regarding issues with which they are presented. Just like any person reading a page on a book ie the Bible, can have a different interpretation of what the words mean.
Kinda tongue in cheek here but computers are pretty sophisticated now. How about programing the Constitution or laws into a super computer. Telling it to take the constitution or laws literally "as written" and let the computer decide emotion free and impartially *L*. I know my computer makes less math mistakes than I do and knows spelling and English better too. Would not be a reach to have a computer interpret the meaning of the law " as written" as long as the programers were held to correct parameters.....Mel
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 10, 2012 7:07:46 GMT -5
Seem like good ideas, but...English is a funny language...and the same words have different meanings depending on lots of factors. and how do you pick one court over another for partiality as the judges within them are political by nature. Liberals want to unseat Conservative judges for Judicial activism. Just as Conservatives want to unseat liberal judges for Activism. And Moderates may not like them but we put up with them anyway.
I'd like to see how a computer could ever deal with the words of the second amendment...This from Wickipedia(if you have another source that's fine with me...I doubt it will be substantively different than this: "There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I'm a computer programmer. I tell computers what to do. Computers are only good at math because they perform math just as they were taught by some programmer like me. People like me would be telling computers how to interpret the Constitution. Yes that does seem like a good way to judge the judges....
charlie
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Apr 10, 2012 8:54:01 GMT -5
*L* As I said I was tongue in cheek on this but you are right Charlie. Human factor still cannot be eliminated and that is always where the failings arise. (shudder). Was just thinking about some antigunner programming for the second amendment *L* You see to me Charlie, regardless of how they are punctuated, both versions you posted have exactly the same meaning. It's meaning is subject to a different interpretation only to those who want it to mean something else and are seeking to find some flaw in the writing as an excuse to abridge our right to bear arms. In actuality, the extra commas don't change a thing and don't do squat to change the intent of the amendment. The one thing above all, that keeps America free, is the fact we are so well armed and our stinking government knows it. I also believe it's a pretty good deterrent for any kind of troops on the ground type invasion by a foreign power because we do indeed have a rather huge and well armed militia....Mel
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 10, 2012 9:58:20 GMT -5
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 10, 2012 9:59:18 GMT -5
yes Mel..The commas are window dressing and do not change anything for me either. I included it for the anal types, (just kidding you anal types, I love you too), ;D ;D, for whom it does matter. In either event,
You can interpret the words as a justification for a well regulated militia and the right of people to keep and bear arms as a part of it.
You can interpret this as the right of people to keep and bear arms and ignore the part about the militia.
and so on
If we try to get into the framers minds, because times are different today..in colonial times, each town had a militia, i.e. Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Boston, etal and it was not a standing army and today we have this huge federal buracracy with a huge standing armies and no militias as they knew them in olonial times(Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard) . So the words of the framers dont seem to have much relevance..at least as far as a militia goes...but there are those who insist these words are just as relevant today as they were then.
It is hard to be wise in every way
charlie
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 10, 2012 10:25:19 GMT -5
Rich, Sharp article ... strange bedfellows...Reagan, Black Panthers, KKK, and the NRA Charlie
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 10, 2012 10:35:48 GMT -5
Thought it rather odd a couple of weeks ago when I never heard this mentioned in oral arguments on the ACA. The Original Federal Mandate to Purchase Something. ;D “A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.”
|
|
|
Post by texaswoodie on Apr 10, 2012 10:48:49 GMT -5
Two things Rich. It states every Eligible man.
It does not cover women and children. So it is not a mandate for all Americans to have to buy something.
I'm sure others can come up with better arguments, that's just what I can think of off the bat.
Curt
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 10, 2012 11:25:50 GMT -5
I am sure you are technically correct Rich (It states every Eligible man...It does not cover women and children. So it is not a mandate for all Americans to have to buy something) But I think that Colonial women were not in the armed forces (or militias) so the law technically applied to anyone who could be covered. I think it also excluded slaves, maybe even non-land owners?, but since we no longer have slaves...and we allow non land owners to vote, etc...As women won equal rights in this country, they're covered by more laws. I'm pretty sure men were expected to keep their families out of harms way; today a woman can do it herself if she so desires ...I dont think that children as minors, need to purchase anything. "I'm sure others can come up with better arguments" Interesting, I would like to hear them too Charlie
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 10, 2012 12:57:04 GMT -5
women & black men weren't citizens and white kids were best seen and not heard white old guys had all the rights forcing them to buy a gun what's the problem? I'm sure they got a tax break
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 10, 2012 14:20:17 GMT -5
“So it is not a mandate for all Americans to have to buy something.” A distinction totally without merit, Curt. As far as your glorious founding fathers were concerned, it did apply to all Americans, the only ones that counted in their eyes - white males. Women, blacks, injuns, etc need not apply. By the same token, the health care mandate doesn’t apply to all Americans either. If you’re covered at work, buy your own, on Medicare, etc, the mandate doesn’t affect you. So it too “is not a mandate for all Americans to have to buy something.” If you already got it, you don’t have to buy it . . . again. ;D Kinda funny, though, how someone can rant and rave till the cows come home about welfare slugs but health insurance free-rider slugs somehow deserve a pass.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 10, 2012 15:19:11 GMT -5
The roots of gun control have always been racist and evil in nature. It is about seizing Control, and controlling people.
At first, it was the former slaves who were the first unconstitutional victims of their control. In fact, it led to the 14th Amendment.
It's pretty obvious to anyone who has studied history what the intent of the 2nd amendment was.
"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, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 11, 2012 10:36:56 GMT -5
Bill says>>>It's pretty obvious to anyone who has studied history what the intent of the 2nd amendment was.
My point exactly Bill...except that it is obvious to some people, even historians, that it means a well regulated Militia to some and the right to bear arms, possess unlimited arms, carry them anywhere they go even schools political rallies, bars, and airplanes, everywhere without control of any sort.
And lots of other things in between
charlie
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 11, 2012 11:02:31 GMT -5
I suppose one could say the text of the amendment itself is less than absolutely definitive, though to me if they did not intend for anyone besides the militia to possess arms they would not have written the second part of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' However, when you can find the framers saying things like "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms...", " Everyone who is able may have a gun...", The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . ." Seems like they are not speaking only about a militia. An armed society is a polite society.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Apr 11, 2012 12:23:39 GMT -5
I suppose one could say the text of the amendment itself is less than absolutely definitive, though to me if they did not intend for anyone besides the militia to possess arms they would not have written the second part of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Bill, I think by now you see how one can talk in circles forever on this topic.
If they intended everyone to possess and bear arms outside of a militia, they would not have written the first part of the sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Many of us have read the history and it seems that the militia part was very important to the framers. the wording was debated. Some versions had a well regulated militia first, some had it second;
This was Madisons orginal proposal "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" Even this has the militia as a cornerstone of the amendment.
For the knee jerkers out there, be aware that I know I am not smart enough to figure this thing out better than anyone else. I can just read the words and deduce there was something in the first part and something in the second part. If you are really someone who believes in the Constitution, it seems frivilous to arbitrarily discard some words and not others. It is also impossible to imagine that a document written in Colonial times could have imagined the country as it is today, as complex as it is today. (and rest assured...I'm not trying to take anyones guns away... just arguing a point that can be interpreted different ways)
charlie
|
|
|
Post by mohs on Apr 11, 2012 12:26:48 GMT -5
An armed society is a polite society. It reminds of the scene in Tombstone Earp and his family having just arrived in Tombstone. Dressed nicely on the dusty road. Doc Holiday joins the picture. They are talking to the sheriff. The sheriff is touting how Tombstone is the next big thing. Race tracks, broad streets, opera house, another San Francisco…. Across the street a couple of drunks are yelling and come crashing/ staggering out thru the barroom doors, pistols drawed, and the fastest drunk shoots the other one down. The Earp party stand there with a bewildered look on their faces Doc Holiday remarks: “Very cosmopolitan..” ;D
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Apr 11, 2012 12:38:02 GMT -5
lol Ed, That's funny.
Charlie, I get your point. I would say that if the framers only wanted the militia to possess arms, They would have done something about outlawing private ownership back then. After all, there were those still loyal to the crown who might have posed a threat.
I'm sure you are right in that this will never be settled to the satisfaction of all. Good thing that possession is nine-tenths of the law, eh?
|
|
|
Post by parfive on Apr 11, 2012 16:34:17 GMT -5
“An armed society is a polite society.” Nah, just one with a higher incidence of gunshot wounds. ;D
|
|