Which parts of the US Constitution need to have a more modern interpretation?

yep, and it was amended. Btw allowing women to vote-around the world-was marked by an increase movement to nanny state government. women, especially unmarried ones-want government to take care of them far more than men and married women. I don't think the GOP has lost the male vote for president other than LBJ since women could vote in the 1920s

 

Which is interesting given that Trump is arguing that presidents are NOT subject to common law

 

Mate! Try harder don’t know whether you would fully qualify yet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernie_Awards

 

According to Heller, because I sure as hell am not taking your word for it.

But Heller was based inaccurate history, and 5/4, it's on shaky ground.

 

typical leftist diversion

pointing out that blacks cause much higher rates of murder (yep)- a leftist will scream racism
pointing out that women vote for more government than men-leftists will scream misogyny

why. because those are uncomfortable truths that the leftist mind cannot rebut but they feel a pavlovian need to object

 

LOL, what exactly is your argument that the federal government can ban guns

I am waiting for an answer I know I will never see.

 

"Virginia Giant" or the "Giant of the Revolution," was what you were looking for? What about him? Hero, yes, but how does he relate to the topic?

My counter was that your claim 'anyone could serve' is not entirely accurate. Yes, there is anecdotal historical fluidity beyond the statutory requirement, but that does not equal 'anyone could serve'.

It's 'nom de plume' I don't have a war name, but, I suspect you were just being colorful in your word choice.

 

Yes of course.... Because I'm not actually arguing on the side of long settled second amendment rights of the American citizens......

We should take your opinion for it because of course you know more than the supreme Court.

 

I think he understands that the founders intended recognition of an individual right while reiterating that the new federal government was never given any gun control powers. He also understands that his burning desire to disarm honest Americans to punish them for many of them opposing the creeping crud of collectivism is blocked by proper interpretations of the Second Amendment and he hopes to change that

 

The term "living document" has a different meaning. Living document refers to reinterpretation of the document (including amendments) from what was intended when it (they) were enacted. It doesn't mean it cannot be amended to clarify addition rights of The People.

As an example, in the Constitution there is the statement "to promote the general welfare" of The People. In the 1960's they created an entitlement program and coined it "Welfare". The program was deemed by many to be unconstitutional. It was coined Welfare in an effort to give the then liberal SCOTUS an opportunity to skirt the constitutional issues. At the time the US Constitution was ratified the term "welfare" had no such meaning and therefore the modern day Welfare Program is in no way referenced by the term "general welfare" in 1789. This is what is meant by attempts to construe the US Constitution as a "living document". It does not refer to the inability to Amend the US Constitution through the amendment process (which is actually defined within the US Constitution).

Furthermore, rights defined in the Constitution are inalienable and cannot be usurped by future amendments. As an example, if a new Amendment were to be proposed limiting the right to free speech it would be without standing. Precedence is given to earlier ratification over more recent amendments for all but the Bill of Rights which were all ratified at the same time. You might note the rights defined in the Bill of Rights are highly unlikely to conflict with one another though it does happen on rare occasions.

In other words, the amendment process is intended to further SPECIFY and INCREASE the rights of The People or the States (not expand the rights of the Federal government). See the 10th Amendment. At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified 3 key members did not want to sign onto the BOR. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. They were so respected, without their support it was unlikely to pass. The reason they had reservations was identified by Franklin to be on the basis of precedence. He they were specifically delineating inalienable rights defined in the Constitution and the first thing they were doing was enacting 8 new Amendments to that Constitution. Franklin believed this would leave the impression the government could change the Constitution at will. They believed this would shortly lead to tyranny. They finally agreed to support the ratification of the BOR when the 10th Amendment was added. It basically says, just because we have enumerated these previous 9 amendments, does not mean the federal government can usurp additional powers.

 

All things considered I'll take your word on that!

 

non sequitur.

reread what I wrote, and reply to that, and nothing else.

It's called 'on point'.

 

you try to undermine the obvious right by pretending Heller is wrong

you never have explained why the second doesn't recognize an individual right

 

Sorry, it wasn't settled until Heller (and incorporated by McDonald)

In fact, there are no explicit Supreme Court cases that specifically repealed a law banning firearms for individuals before Heller. That's why the matter wasn't settled until Heller.

 

The only inaccurate history being put out there are by those that cherry pick history. Ignoring the fact that the Founders had just gotten out of a war in which personally owned arms were outlawed by those that they fought against. Ignoring the fact that the Founders knew that if they hadn't had their personal arms then they never would have stood a chance against the tyranny they were facing. Ignoring the fact that our Founders warned against tyranny and said outright at the start of the war that:

The people spewing anti-gun rhetoric wants people to believe that our Founders were stupid and thought that their form of government would never become tyrannical and would never need to be fought against. That our Founders wanted people disarmed and only the elite to have arms.

 

Fake News.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) affirmed both Heller and McDonald, 6-3. They are controlling precedent and solidly grounded in the US Constitution.

 

Let's get something straightened out about Scalia and the second amendment.

His 'prefatory clause' and 'operative clause', insofar as syntactical grammar, WAS NOT TAUGHT in the late 17th century, yet his logic flows from it.

My argument on grammar of the late 18th century, highlighting a potential anachronism or modern bias in Scalia's interpretation technique, well, it's like this, the effectiveness of this argument in a broader legal or historical debate would depend on how convincingly one can link the specific grammatical analysis to substantive changes in the interpretation of the Second Amendment’s text. Critics might counter that despite the modern terminology, Scalia's analysis remains an attempt to discern the original meaning and intent behind the Amendment, which is the crux of originalist legal philosophy. This syntax angle is not something I've not seen anyone challenge Scalia about.

Moreover, we have to review the note taking that was done regarding the arguments made at the constitutional convention, there are a few sources for this information, and it is a lot of reading, but necessary, to get the full perspective of what was going on at that time. .

The move towards digitizing historical texts has greatly enhanced historians' ability to interpret past intentions, including the understanding of the right to bear arms. Historian Nathan Kozuskanich conducted a thorough investigation by examining the phrase "bear arms" in a collection of 120 American newspapers spanning from 1690 to 1800. His research also extended to various newspapers, pamphlets, and broadsides archived in the Library of Congress's online database. His findings indicated that the phrase was almost exclusively used in a collective or military setting, signifying involvement in military activities. Based on this evidence, Kozuskanich deduced that the term "bear arms" was predominantly understood in a military context during the eighteenth century, applicable during both wartime and peacetime. Given that fact, seems to me it supports the idea that an able bodied man who was expected to serve in the militia was required to own and maintain a musket. Most folks had a rifle, or a handgun or both, and no no one really talked about 'rights' the idea that they couldn't have them was absurd, far from public consciousness. The second amendment was all about the militia, and fear of a standing army, i.e., the continental army usurping state's militia. The second amendment is clearly militia-centric.

The first time in history the two clauses of the second amendment were de-coupled were with Heller, and that's a fact. That beckons the question, clearly, if Heller decoupled the clauses, that means they were coupled before that, i.e, one dependent on the other. I recall the grammar of clauses back in the sixties being more like 'main clause', 'subordinate clause' independent clause' and which were which depended on context the sentence was used in. I do not remember anyone mentioning the terms 'prefatory' and 'operative' clause. I view those as suspect, because it appears to arise out of a biased point of view, as if these were the way it was, and it proves his point. No, it doesn't, because my research indicates that those terms did not exist in the late 18th century. Scalia's 'prefatory' and 'operative' clause is crap he made up to coincide with his gun advocacy view.

This given the survey of the meaning of 'bear arms', seems to me the second amendment was militia centric, not individual centric. At the time, they are highly related given that most men were expected to own a fire arm and muster with the militia with regularity.

The whole thing is murky, the second amendment's syntax is horrific, by modern standards. If written today, and we intended on a non militia tie in for individual ownership, the second amendment would have been written much differently.

Thing is, individual ownership during the time of the ratification of the constitution was commonplace. Like owning a horse, it's part of a frontiersman's life. No one really was concerned about not being able to own firearms for hunting and self defense. Your average fellow of the time, it wasn't something they were worried about, it was assumed, like clothing, shelter, i.e., a part of life. That it should be a 'right' wasn't that much on their minds.

When I read this:

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 see this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the militia shall not be infringed.

In my view, 'for the militia' is implied.

So, the point is, true or not, it's not well written for modernity .

But, in my view, the main clause is the first clause, the second clause is the subordinate clause (dependent clause). If that is the case, and I believe ti is, writ large, the second amendment is militia - centric.

That's how I would interpret based on how I was taught grammar.

What Scalia did was inject his own gun advocacy in the ruling.

Now, I'm not saying 'ban guns', if frontiersman needed guns for hunting and self defense, so should we, but within public safety constraints. They didn't have all the high powered and accurate weapons that we have today.

I believe we should repeal the second amendment, because it's causing too much guns and more guns means more gun deaths, etc. Let states regulate them, and if you don't like the regs in the state you live, move to a red state.

The amendment is an anachronism.

 

Your mate Zorro above says otherwise.

You write almost as if you would disapprove of powerful men being predatory towards females!

You might face a dilemma if you’re proved wrong. Would you dismiss it as fake history?

 

First thing that comes to mind is the fourth amendment

"[t]he 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"


The "persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" protected in the fourth amendment ought to include private information which is has been digitized, as well as the electronic devices that store them. There are many examples where the advancement in technology warrants a more modern interpretation of our written laws from over 200 years ago, but the fourth amendment in particular stands out the most to me.

I would also say with the advancement of AI generated images/videos, we will probably need to apply a modern interpretation of the "false statement of fact" which are not protected under the first amendment.. at least in specific instances for when a faked image/video are commonly believed to be real, which are either used for the purpose of fraud, or to damage one's reputation to the point of them potentially losing work.

As is, you can be sued for fraud or defamation if you tell a lie for the purpose of committing fraud, or you can potentially be sued for defamation in some instances. This should also apply not just for statements, but for making fake images/videos of someone. And no, I am not referring to the ones that are obviously fake, only in instances where there is real financial damage due said images/videos being commonly perceived as real

 

All thanks to Katie Couric. What a despicable human being. Here's to an end to remission.

 

Oh, okay. So it's kind of like climate change, must be true because the IPCC says so.

Must be the way things work in Australia.

 

No not in the since that the term is used by Democrat justices to mean subject to reinterpretation without any regard whatever to the actual wording of the document. But interesting attempt at a strawman. You want to change the constitution amend it don't bastardize it.

 

No we would do well to support the meaning. Limited government is the answer.

 

Lols! Another day another logical fallacy

 

In that case ask the GOP to please get out of women’s wombs