Question for you strict constructionist judges

[Tom]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Quoting sentence fragments from the Constitution has no meaning. The first clause of a sentence does not stand on it's own, seperate from the rest of the sentence.

You are wrong. Basic English grammar allows for dependent and independent clauses in sentences. Let's change the wording a bit and you'll see how this works:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

By your interpretation, only the "well-educated" would be guaranteed a right to read.

Not collecting guns, not hunting, not home defense. AS far as "the people" being seperate from " the well regulated militia", I did not say that. Obviously "the people" are the militia, based on the wording.

Going back to an interpretation limiting the Second Amendment to the militia (which as you point out is the people anyway, making the entire argument non-sensical), you could say the same about any materiel needed for the militia.... since a militia needs food, if the Second Amendment talked about food instead would you say that anyone not belonging to a militia wouldn't have the right to eat?

Um, your sentence about well-read-- does not say only the "well-read" would have the right to read, but what it does say is the reason why people have the right to read is because it is beneficial to have well-read people.

What that means, if read in a "strict" way, is any other purpose for reading, would not be protected by the Constitution.

And in the case of the 2nd amendment, "the people" have a right to own guns, but only for the limited purpose that a well regulated militia is required. So other reasons for owning guns are not protected. And regulation of ownership is clearly permitted.

And again, my purpose is not to advocate these interpretations, my purpose is to point out that a literal reading, or strict interpretation of the constitution, would require these conclusions, and to show that nobody really believes in the so-called strict interpretation, it's just a way to attack decisions that a person doesn't like.


Another example--

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"


Strict interpretation of the Constitution is that citizenship begins at birth, so the issue of abortion the unborn have no standing acording the constitution so there is no basis for banning abortion. And the only proper regulation of abortion would be for the health of the mother, not to protect the unborn.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tom
As far as you comments about the 1st amendment, I have no idea what you are talking about. "militia" is not part of the 1st amendment in any way.

Precisely my point. "The people" as used in the second amendment has nothing to do with any government organized army as gun grabbers would prefer. It means exactly what it says. "The people" meaning the entire citizenry has the right to bear arms. Just as "the people" meaning the entire citizenry has the right peaceably assemble.

I never said the people don't have the right to bear arms.

 

[dardin211]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: glenn1

Quoting sentence fragments from the Constitution has no meaning. The first clause of a sentence does not stand on it's own, seperate from the rest of the sentence.

You are wrong. Basic English grammar allows for dependent and independent clauses in sentences. Let's change the wording a bit and you'll see how this works:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

By your interpretation, only the "well-educated" would be guaranteed a right to read.

Not collecting guns, not hunting, not home defense. AS far as "the people" being seperate from " the well regulated militia", I did not say that. Obviously "the people" are the militia, based on the wording.

Going back to an interpretation limiting the Second Amendment to the militia (which as you point out is the people anyway, making the entire argument non-sensical), you could say the same about any materiel needed for the militia.... since a militia needs food, if the Second Amendment talked about food instead would you say that anyone not belonging to a militia wouldn't have the right to eat?

Um, your sentence about well-read-- does not say only the "well-read" would have the right to read, but what it does say is the reason why people have the right to read is because it is beneficial to have well-read people.

What that means, if read in a "strict" way, is any other purpose for reading, would not be protected by the Constitution.

And in the case of the 2nd amendment, "the people" have a right to own guns, but only for the limited purpose that a well regulated militia is required. So other reasons for owning guns are not protected. And regulation of ownership is clearly permitted.

And again, my purpose is not to advocate these interpretations, my purpose is to point out that a literal reading, or strict interpretation of the constitution, would require these conclusions, and to show that nobody really believes in the so-called strict interpretation, it's just a way to attack decisions that a person doesn't like.


Another example--

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"


Strict interpretation of the Constitution is that citizenship begins at birth, so the issue of abortion the unborn have no standing acording the constitution so there is no basis for banning abortion. And the only proper regulation of abortion would be for the health of the mother, not to protect the unborn.

Well said. This is exactly how I interpretate this, based on the defenition of the word "born" or "birth".

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
We know how the Democrats voted. They made and enforced the laws you claim to be offensive. A Constitutional judge would have said the laws were unconstitutional. As you see from the liberal decisions lately, including from the Supreme Court, true liberals don't care or even like the U. S. Constitution. They much prefer the U. N.

Where did you come from and when are you going back?

Rather than answer a rhetorical question allow me to ask two in return. Why do you hate the truth? Are you afraid of it?

Sticking to the topic, how could you rule unconstitutional when the Supreme Court said "seperate but equal" was constitutional?

Separate but equal can and was used to enforce unequal rights. The question was how a Supreme Court judge would rule today on such an issue not how Supreme Court justices had ruled in the past. Since you are the OP I assume you original question was misstated. My apologies.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: HomerJS

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
We know how the Democrats voted. They made and enforced the laws you claim to be offensive. A Constitutional judge would have said the laws were unconstitutional. As you see from the liberal decisions lately, including from the Supreme Court, true liberals don't care or even like the U. S. Constitution. They much prefer the U. N.

Where did you come from and when are you going back?

Rather than answer a rhetorical question allow me to ask two in return. Why do you hate the truth? Are you afraid of it?

Sticking to the topic, how could you rule unconstitutional when the Supreme Court said "seperate but equal" was constitutional?

Plessey was an exceedingly flawed decision on the part of the court. Blacks were supposed to afforded equal protection under the law that they did not receive. Also, the presumption that the facilities provided were indeed equal was factually incorrect in nearly every case.

So playing devil's advocate for a minute, you can argue the facilities on a public bus are unequal between rows 3 and 23?

I'd be of the opinion that she was not treated with the equal protection of the law. It was not the intention of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to create a second class citizenry somewhere between slavery and full rights.

The 'seperate but equal' issue would not apply in this particular instance.

Good reasoned logic but one problem. You would have to prove the seat in row 3 is better then row 23. That would determine who is the second class citizen. Example, if the seats in row 23 are padded that would make the white guy the lesser.

Your conclusion would have to be reached outside existing law and I believe that would be judicial activism.

Your logic is flawed. If a seat in row 3 is better, worse, or the same as a seat on row 23, when you deny someone the right to sit in an unoccopied seat but give another that right based on race, color, or creed then equal rights have not been conferred.

From 1956 until 1965 (when I was sent off to a school that kept me out of jail) I protested that Blacks and Whites had separate bathrooms and water fountains. If a child can see that "separate but equal" is a racist agenda (isn't that the agenda of certain black groups today?) then it should be clear to even the most liberal of liberals.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

We know how the Democrats voted. They made and enforced the laws you claim to be offensive. A Constitutional judge would have said the laws were unconstitutional. As you see from the liberal decisions lately, including from the Supreme Court, true liberals don't care or even like the U. S. Constitution. They much prefer the U. N.

Originally posted by: shira
And even more significant for those who make "strict constructionist" arguments about Roe v Wade and gun control ("Where does it say anything in the Constitution about allowing abortion?"), neither the Constitution nor any of its contemporaneous writings say a single word about freedom to sit while riding busses.

Roe v Wade would have been ruled the other way by a group of judges that supported the U. S. Constitution. They would have rightly said that the United States has no jurisdiction over such laws. Such laws should be made, or not, by the individual States.

As for gun laws the Constitution is quite clear and judges working from the Constitution would strike down any laws, including state laws that tried to regulate guns. The laws passed in the 20's outlawing unfettered ownership of fully automatic weapons (machine guns) made a specific action of guns illegal. I'm surprised, but not upset, that such laws were considered Constitutional. Communists and Fascists will always vote for strict gun control. It makes purges so much easier.

Gun laws- If you read the 2nd Amendment, it is clear on it's face that regulation of guns is Constitutional. A strict reading of the Constitution would only protect gun ownership for the purpose of maintaining a militia, beyond that purpose it would be a state matter.

Roe- vs Wade- the issue at the heart of this case is clearly a Federal Constitutional issue, it is about the right to life. liberty, of a woman, it is clearly logical that a woman is not free if the government is in control of her body and mandates her life and health is less important than another "person's". (assuming an unborn human is a "person", which the Constitution does not address, so there is no basis for a strict reading to give the unborn any constitutional protection.

This whole argument about strict constitutionalists and activist judges is a load of crap, just a way to attack decisions that aren't liked by one side or the other.

Gun laws? Where did you come up with such nonsense? Only the most liberal groups have ever suggested that, including the Clintons. In fact the Clinton Admininistration went further and stated that people in the term "right of the people" meant Government employees. Which, of course, would mean that only Government employees had the right to free speech. I, most conservatives, and even some liberals reject such a Fascist definition. It does make sense from the liberal agenda.



Roe- vs Wade-
Even liberals, at times, admit that a child is a human even before they are born. If they didn't then hitting a woman and causing an abortion would only result in assault and battery charges.

The issue with Roe vs Wade was who should have the authority to make such laws. The Constitution does not mention abortions and thus the power is conferred to the people.

This whole argument about strict constitutionalists and activist judges is a load of crap, just a way to attack decisions that aren't liked by one side or the other.

Then ignore the thread.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Tom
Gun laws- If you read the 2nd Amendment, it is clear on it's face that regulation of guns is Constitutional. A strict reading of the Constitution would only protect gun ownership for the purpose of maintaining a militia, beyond that purpose it would be a state matter.

If you want to argue that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militia members even though it clearly states that "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms...", then you need to prove to me that the first amendment stating "the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." applies to the average citizen as opposed to militia members. Perhaps the only people who are constitutionally protected to gather and protest are those in the military, if we're to believe your translation of the Bill of Rights.

Quoting sentence fragments from the Constitution has no meaning. The first clause of a sentence does not stand on it's own, seperate from the rest of the sentence. The purpose in the 2nd amendment for protecting gun ownership, is the need for a "well regulated" militia. Not collecting guns, not hunting, not home defense. AS far as "the people" being seperate from " the well regulated militia", I did not say that. Obviously "the people" are the militia, based on the wording.

Now I am not arguing whether this strict reading is the way the 2nd amendment should be judged, in fact you completely miss my point, which is the strict reading of the Constitution is a falsehood, and judges like Scalia and Thomas who claim that is their philosophy are fooling themselves, or lying.

As far as you comments about the 1st amendment, I have no idea what you are talking about. "militia" is not part of the 1st amendment in any way.

Read the Federalist Papers if you can't read the amendment.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice
We know how the Democrats voted. They made and enforced the laws you claim to be offensive. A Constitutional judge would have said the laws were unconstitutional. As you see from the liberal decisions lately, including from the Supreme Court, true liberals don't care or even like the U. S. Constitution. They much prefer the U. N.

Where did you come from and when are you going back?

Rather than answer a rhetorical question allow me to ask two in return. Why do you hate the truth? Are you afraid of it?

What the hell are you talking about. Back it up. Sounds like a bunch of Conservative talking points strung together.

I have done so. Including links showing that it has almost always been the Democrats who opposed equality for Blacks. Go check it out or better, do your own research instead of letting liberal diatribe substitue for your abliity to research.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: glenn1

Quoting sentence fragments from the Constitution has no meaning. The first clause of a sentence does not stand on it's own, seperate from the rest of the sentence.

You are wrong. Basic English grammar allows for dependent and independent clauses in sentences. Let's change the wording a bit and you'll see how this works:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

By your interpretation, only the "well-educated" would be guaranteed a right to read.

Not collecting guns, not hunting, not home defense. AS far as "the people" being seperate from " the well regulated militia", I did not say that. Obviously "the people" are the militia, based on the wording.

Going back to an interpretation limiting the Second Amendment to the militia (which as you point out is the people anyway, making the entire argument non-sensical), you could say the same about any materiel needed for the militia.... since a militia needs food, if the Second Amendment talked about food instead would you say that anyone not belonging to a militia wouldn't have the right to eat?

Um, your sentence about well-read-- does not say only the "well-read" would have the right to read, but what it does say is the reason why people have the right to read is because it is beneficial to have well-read people.

What that means, if read in a "strict" way, is any other purpose for reading, would not be protected by the Constitution.

And in the case of the 2nd amendment, "the people" have a right to own guns, but only for the limited purpose that a well regulated militia is required. So other reasons for owning guns are not protected. And regulation of ownership is clearly permitted.

And again, my purpose is not to advocate these interpretations, my purpose is to point out that a literal reading, or strict interpretation of the constitution, would require these conclusions, and to show that nobody really believes in the so-called strict interpretation, it's just a way to attack decisions that a person doesn't like.


Another example--

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"


Strict interpretation of the Constitution is that citizenship begins at birth, so the issue of abortion the unborn have no standing acording the constitution so there is no basis for banning abortion. And the only proper regulation of abortion would be for the health of the mother, not to protect the unborn.

Doesn't (as you state) that rule refer to children of foreigners? Isn't that the only way we can actually tell when a child from a foreign couple should be given protection under the U.S Constitution and it's laws?

If not which method would you use instead.
A child is only a citizen if the child was conceived in the United States. (Would this affect the status of children born to U.S. Citizens while they are traveling abroad?)
or
Any woman who it can reasonably be determined was pregnant while in the United States regardless of where conception or birth occured is a citizen of the U.S.?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

Unless you can prove that the back seats differ from the first seats, I uphold the law based on Plessy vs Ferguson.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

Unless you can prove that the back seats differ from the first seats, I uphold the law based on Plessy vs Ferguson.

typical, nobody expects any better from a right-wing nutjob. what's sad is you think your a good christian.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

Unless you can prove that the back seats differ from the first seats, I uphold the law based on Plessy vs Ferguson.

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

Unless you can prove that the back seats differ from the first seats, I uphold the law based on Plessy vs Ferguson.

typical, nobody expects any better from a right-wing nutjob. what's sad is you think your a good christian.

There is no right or left wing. You have a rule of the higher court to go by.

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: HomerJS
You are the judge in the case of Rosa Parks vs the City of Montgomery Alabama. The charge, refusing to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. Remember that was allowed by law back then. Also assume the standard sentance for violating that law is 1 year in jail.

How do you rule?

Unless you can prove that the back seats differ from the first seats, I uphold the law based on Plessy vs Ferguson.

typical, nobody expects any better from a right-wing nutjob. what's sad is you think your a good christian.

There is no right or left wing. You have a rule of the higher court to go by.

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

I'd rule that the city law is void since it is in conflict with the 14th amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

Except Brown v Board of Ed. of Topeka and Sweatt v Painter were already decided, so you would just be upholding racist beliefs, because the laws were garbage at that point. (As if they weren't before, it just became legal garbage then)

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

Except Brown v Board of Ed. of Topeka and Sweatt v Painter were already decided, so you would just be upholding racist beliefs, because the laws were garbage at that point. (As if they weren't before, it just became legal garbage then)

Text

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.


The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

Except Brown v Board of Ed. of Topeka and Sweatt v Painter were already decided, so you would just be upholding racist beliefs, because the laws were garbage at that point. (As if they weren't before, it just became legal garbage then)

Text

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.


The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time.

Since we're playing "if I was the judge," why not extend it? If you see a problem with the law, a problem that contradicts the something in the Constitution, why uphold a contradiction?

That's what they did against Plessy v Ferguson and several other decisions. Otherwise, you'd be doing that thing Dubya fans keep carping about, you know, judicial activism, and not obeying the law.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

Except Brown v Board of Ed. of Topeka and Sweatt v Painter were already decided, so you would just be upholding racist beliefs, because the laws were garbage at that point. (As if they weren't before, it just became legal garbage then)

Text

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.


The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time.

Since we're playing "if I was the judge," why not extend it? If you see a problem with the law, a problem that contradicts the something in the Constitution, why uphold a contradiction?

That's what they did against Plessy v Ferguson and several other decisions. Otherwise, you'd be doing that thing Dubya fans keep carping about, you know, judicial activism, and not obeying the law.

Because the law binds lower courts to SCOTUS decisions? Not much of a purpose to a Supreme Court otherwise. Would you be in favor of lesser judges allowing abortion laws on their own?

I thought liberals felt they should be bound by precedence and "settled law". Kind of the impression I got from the Roberts hearings.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: zendari

If there is no separate facility Plessey does not apply. The question becomes why does she have to move (by law) for a white person on a city owned bus.

Because of city law?

Except Brown v Board of Ed. of Topeka and Sweatt v Painter were already decided, so you would just be upholding racist beliefs, because the laws were garbage at that point. (As if they weren't before, it just became legal garbage then)

Text

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. [12]

The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America.


The Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time.

Since we're playing "if I was the judge," why not extend it? If you see a problem with the law, a problem that contradicts the something in the Constitution, why uphold a contradiction?

That's what they did against Plessy v Ferguson and several other decisions. Otherwise, you'd be doing that thing Dubya fans keep carping about, you know, judicial activism, and not obeying the law.

Because the law binds lower courts to SCOTUS decisions? Not much of a purpose to a Supreme Court otherwise. Would you be in favor of lesser judges allowing abortion laws on their own?

I thought liberals felt they should be bound by precedence and "settled law". Kind of the impression I got from the Roberts hearings.

You missed what I said. If you find that the law contradicts a decision, you do something about it. We do have things built into the system that allow this.

In case you were unaware, Supreme Court cases do tend to start in lower courts.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: ExpertNovice

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: glenn1

Quoting sentence fragments from the Constitution has no meaning. The first clause of a sentence does not stand on it's own, seperate from the rest of the sentence.

You are wrong. Basic English grammar allows for dependent and independent clauses in sentences. Let's change the wording a bit and you'll see how this works:

A well-educated people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

By your interpretation, only the "well-educated" would be guaranteed a right to read.

Not collecting guns, not hunting, not home defense. AS far as "the people" being seperate from " the well regulated militia", I did not say that. Obviously "the people" are the militia, based on the wording.

Going back to an interpretation limiting the Second Amendment to the militia (which as you point out is the people anyway, making the entire argument non-sensical), you could say the same about any materiel needed for the militia.... since a militia needs food, if the Second Amendment talked about food instead would you say that anyone not belonging to a militia wouldn't have the right to eat?

Um, your sentence about well-read-- does not say only the "well-read" would have the right to read, but what it does say is the reason why people have the right to read is because it is beneficial to have well-read people.

What that means, if read in a "strict" way, is any other purpose for reading, would not be protected by the Constitution.

And in the case of the 2nd amendment, "the people" have a right to own guns, but only for the limited purpose that a well regulated militia is required. So other reasons for owning guns are not protected. And regulation of ownership is clearly permitted.

And again, my purpose is not to advocate these interpretations, my purpose is to point out that a literal reading, or strict interpretation of the constitution, would require these conclusions, and to show that nobody really believes in the so-called strict interpretation, it's just a way to attack decisions that a person doesn't like.


Another example--

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"


Strict interpretation of the Constitution is that citizenship begins at birth, so the issue of abortion the unborn have no standing acording the constitution so there is no basis for banning abortion. And the only proper regulation of abortion would be for the health of the mother, not to protect the unborn.

Doesn't (as you state) that rule refer to children of foreigners? Isn't that the only way we can actually tell when a child from a foreign couple should be given protection under the U.S Constitution and it's laws?

If not which method would you use instead.
A child is only a citizen if the child was conceived in the United States. (Would this affect the status of children born to U.S. Citizens while they are traveling abroad?)
or
Any woman who it can reasonably be determined was pregnant while in the United States regardless of where conception or birth occured is a citizen of the U.S.?

The "rule" I bolded isn't limited to the children of foreigners, it is the means of defining who is a citizen, period. And my point is it is literally says all persons who are "born", not conceived. So a literal interpretation means that an unborn person is not a citizen of the United States or any state.