[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 219. #9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. Yes, I have a comment (or two.) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS
#87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9)
Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
#94. To: nolu chan (#87) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
#98. To: tpaine (#94) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
#101. To: nolu chan (#98) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one..
#109. To: tpaine (#101)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien?
#117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109)
I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?"
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision.
Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>> Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
#141. To: tpaine (#117)
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims.
#146. To: nolu chan (#141) I answered your question. Yep, you answered the question that lead to this thread. Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. - - Fine.. Here's another: ---
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense)
Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. I do not ineluctably deem that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. Your turn, -- answer mine.
#147. To: tpaine (#146)
Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
#148. To: nolu chan, tpaine (#147) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution.
#153. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#148) I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd.
AKA Stone --- nolu chan never said that. He just said it was possible to do under the wording of the constitution. Here's what Chan posted about that subject: --
He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down.
I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt.
What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
Now I have no idea WHY my remark above raised such a hissy fit, -- but obviously, that is what Chan posted. As I said before, this discussion is getting bizarro. Why in hell does my opinion, -- that amendments cannot alienate away our basic rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, --- that they would be unconstitutional, -- become such a divisive issue?
#179. To: tpaine (#153)
[tpaine #153] I posted to: nolu chan,----- Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. I have not revised my answer. You asked if the 2nd Amendment could be repealed. My answer has consistently been that it could be repealed by another amendment, in the same manner that the 18th was repealed by the 21st. You did not here ask if I favored or opposed such repeal. I have not changed my mind on that either. I just not comport with the fantasy argument you have been cut and pasting for a decade. The RKBA is protected by the 2nd Amendment and the right is an individual right. The 2nd Amendment did not grant a right to anyone, but recognized a pre-existing right, inhering to the people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Amendment II As the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the states, it applies equally to the states due to the 14th Amendment. If it were not (or before it was) incorporated, that would not confer a delegation of sovereign power to state to mess with the RKBA. The right was individual and I do not see when the people have ever chosen to delegate away their RBKA power in any state. It is not delegated away by silence in the organic law. As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction.
To: tpaine
#180. To: nolu chan (#179) Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know.
As Jim Rob summed you up, inflicting pain is your game. You strive to be a pain in the ass and see if you can get a reaction. Whatever. -- You're repeating yourself again. --- Get some new lines...
#183. To: tpaine (#180) You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned.
To: tpaine
#185. To: nolu chan (#183) Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR?
Feel free, but dream on if you really imagine it proves anything...
#186. To: tpaine (#185)
Why are you repeatedly reposting that tired old post from JR? I guess you should keep reading it until it becomes clearer.
[tpaine] You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. Perhaps if I emphasize the obvious a bit more.
To: tpaine You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously.
#188. To: nolu chan, poor thing, uses JR for support. (#186) You poor thing. Jim Rob would not take your abuse report seriously. You poor thing, trying to imply that filing 'abuse reports' at that time on FR meant attempting to get someone banned. --- Hell, for a while there, it was the sites sport, as everyone competed to see who could get the mods to 'delete' your opponents personally offensive remarks. To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred.
#189. To: tpaine (#188) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29
To: Eagle Eye Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse?
#190. To: nolu chan, trying to prove his point by citing JR at FR (#189) To my knowledge, NONE of my opponents were ever banned for anything I posted. Quite the opposite actually occurred. And for proof, read the thread below, cited by Chan.
www.freerepublic.com/focu...t/650379/posts?page=29#29 To: Eagle Eye I understand your frustration, believe me. -- But get this: --- I was once suspended for a week for 'abusing abuse'. When abuse first came in, it was 'abused'. By a lot of us. -- I was the first to be honored to know it was to be verboten, -- at a mods discretion.] 29 posted on 3/20/2002, 6:47:15 PM by tpaine
Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? If you really read the thread you would know, --- not many.. ---- At this point in my FR 'career', JR was really on my case, and working himself up to permanently banning a number of us 'disruptors'. Which he eventually did... I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants.
#191. To: tpaine (#190) I urge anyone to read the whole thread for context. It was a very fun time for most of us at FR ---- Except for JR and his band of sick sycophants. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts tpaine vanity whine
'Flame war' or Constitutional debate? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=17#17
To: tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=24#24
To: tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=29#29'
To: Eagle Eye Damn. How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? = = = = = = = = = = A tpaine victory http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=36#36
To: tpaine http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=37#37
To: Sandy http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40">http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/650379/posts?page=40#40
To: tpaine And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? And you were obviously referring to your antics on yet some previous thread.
#192. To: nolu chan (#191) 13/14 years ago, I posted: --- -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' . 'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid- discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control. No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation. I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange. And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods. I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer. -- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions. 1 posted on 3/20/2002, 4:46:13 PM by tpaine Shortly after, I received this post from JR..
To: tpaine --- I'll ask John to start a new topic called "Whine and Cheese" just for you. Thanks, Jim ----- 40 posted on 3/20/2002, 9:33:42 PM by Jim Robinson And, if memory serves, JR suspended me for another short period, right after that..
And the unanswered question remains, How many times did you have to hit the abuse button to get suspended for a week for abusing abuse? I answered, just above, that I have no idea 'how many times'. -- Look it up if it's important to you. -- That seems to be your major obsession the last few days, trying to convict be of some 'crime' over at FR, 13 years ago. Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird.
#193. To: tpaine (#192) Get a life. Find a new hobby. -- Or rave on, and continue your obsessive- compulsive behaviour. It's becoming funny/weird.
http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=10#C10
#10. To: sysadmin, gatlin, Y'ALL (#5) http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=16#C16
#16. To: Palmdale, sysadmin, Y'ALL (#14) http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=17#C17
#17. To: tpaine, Palmdale, All (#16) http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=18#C18
#18. To: sysadmin (#17) http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=19#C19
#19. To: Palmdale (#18) http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=349961&Disp=20#C20
#20. To: tpaine (#16) Everybody else tries to instigate flame wars with you, but you remain resolute in keeping the peace. It's a tough job but somebody has to do it.
#194. To: nolu chan (#193) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud.
#195. To: tpaine (#194)
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Yes, everybody else is unstable. You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative. You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=39#C39
#39. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#8) http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=79#C79
#79. To: nolu chan (#73) http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=82#C82
#82. To: tpaine (#79) http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732&Disp=89#C89
#89. To: nolu chan (#75) This is the #75 that you respond to by saying I want to end this discussion with a flame war. What you characterize as an entry in a flame war bears repeating to show your desperation.
#75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53)
#196. To: nolu chan (#195) (Edited) Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. Makes me proud.
Yes, everybody else is unstable. What can I say? -- You're certainly overwrought, as evidenced by your last reply..
You poor baby. You accuse everyone of trying to start a flame war with you. On this thread you started your modus operandi at your #39 to TooConservative.--- You continued your modus operandi at your #79 to myself, nolu chan. Who's acting like a poor baby? You are kiddo.
I have been documenting your pulling this same stunt at this site and other sites. By doing it with me (again), you invited the rebuttal. Sometimes the truth hurts. I am not flaming you, I am coldly, almost robotically, destroying your whines. Whatever.... But do tell us more about your robotic fantasies....
#197. To: tpaine (#196)
Thank you for reposting those remarks. Obviously, I'm opposed by a lot of very unstable people who are very unhappy about them. If you insist on more stories about your legal acumen and the pride you take in your posting history, I am compelled to comply. When Legal Giants Collide http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=133#133
To: bvw http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=211#211
To: Illbay Let's see, disturbing the peace is a form of fraud. Only in tpaineworld.
Give JS & I an example of a 'criminal' act we could commit upon *you*, roscoe, -- that would injure you without using force or fraud. I prefer to give examples of what could be done to
In tpaineworld, how does one commit a crime against another person, with or without violence? You could always violate the laws of nature.
#198. To: nolu chan (#197) --- I am compelled to comply. You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. Please, get help. I'm sorry that you feel I've driven you to this compulsion...
#199. To: tpaine (#198) You reAlly are going off the deep end with your last post, my boy. I'd recommend a mental health counselor, but I don't know any. That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent.
#200. To: nolu chan (#199) That one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. But in any case, it is not the end of the world when someone disputes what you INSIST are the way things MUST be. And believe me, I really am concerned about your compulsive and repetitive posts. Please, get help...
#201. To: tpaine (#200)
Your mistaken opinions about my character have been noted and you are entitled to them, but you really should lighten up, for your own mental health.. That's one way to avoid admitting that you do not any more clue about criminal law than you do about constitutional law. You don't even know what I was talking about, you are that incompetent. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/802290/posts?page=224#224
To: Roscoe; Illbay; bvw Unrefuted, indeed! Observing the Dean of the tpaine School of Law flail about in the dark is more fun than the typical TV sitcom. Nobody could possibly refute your scholarship at criminal law. Americans need to be educated oni the law and you, as leader of the Black Widows, are the one for the job.
#202. To: nolu chan (#201) How weird that you pick 'Roscoe' for your hero. --- But that's fine. --- Just another example of how overwrought and unstable you've become. I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can..
#203. To: tpaine (#202)
Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1907774/posts?page=177#177
To: tpaine; Kevmo
#204. To: nolu chan (#203) I still don't understand just what disturbs you so.. The mere fact that we disagree about the constitutionality of amending away our basic human rights, -- shouldn't have set you off to this extent. Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can..
Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness. Me? Helpless? Dream on boy.
You can only try to divert attention from the fact that you are unable to understand why your comments on criminal law are so absurd. You keep repeating your mistaken opinions and attempt to prove them by digging up old threads from FR. --- Do you really imagine this silly tactic is working?
Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. www.freerepublic.com/focu...907774/posts?page=177#177 Thanks again for the link. I urge anyone to read the thread for context.
#205. To: tpaine (#204)
[tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed.. I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law.
[tpaine #202] Please nolu, tell us what is really bothering you...If you can.. Asked and answered at my #203, "Nothing. I am having a good time laughing at your helplessness."
Your legal acumen was accurately assessed years ago by dpa5923. Your lack of understanding of criminal law is almost criminal. Oh, that's alright, I'll repeat the context. It was that "[y]our lack of understanding of basic principles of constitution or common law is almost criminal. It would definitely be grounds for malpractice if you ever tried to present such flawed arguments in a court of law."
To: tpaine; Kevmo As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30
#30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's inspired wisdom will rub off. Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. As per tpaine, "the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away," I suppose the capital crime cited in the Constitution must refer to a crime committed in Washington, D.C. As for the certified insane having a right to keep and bear arms, some people should not be allowed to keep and bear keyboards.
#206. To: nolu chan, continues reposting old threads, in an obsessive effort to 'win' something? (#205) tpaine #200] I've disputed your opinions about our Constitution. You really should try to live with the possibility that your education (in some politically correct law school?) may be flawed..
»I see that you have entered your excuse making phase to explain why you are incapable of discerning what is so boneheaded about your discussion of criminal law quoted in my #197 and #201. Your abject lack of legal knowledge, i.e. not knowing what you were talking about, now leaves you helpless to to do anything but bluster and bloviate. It is fun to watch. --- While I have not claimed to be a lawyer, you allusion to my purported politically correct law school education is your way of explaining why your own knowledge of law is revealed to be so deficient. It is a crutch to explain the boneheaded nature of your discussion of criminal law. Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions.
I and many others, both here and on other forums, have rejected some of your opinions, as your links to FR and LP have proved. Thanks again do posting them..
As for your general legal acumen, the following is a fun example: libertypost.org/cgi- bin/r...ArtNum=204789&Disp=30#C30 #30. To: robertpaulsen, tolsti, yall (#28) [...] It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it. It is then argued that our inalienable right to self defense does not include using a gun because if it did, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one and they don't; -- which is faulty logic. If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Case closed. [to those with logical, open minds] tpaine posted on 2007-10-30 9:08:50 ET
In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's -----
Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at leastcthe last portions of the thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat.
#207. To: tpaine (#206) It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence,
Thanks for finally admitting you are not a lawyer, arguing as an authority. -- Thus, your opinions are just that, opinions. Any claim to be a lawyer by an internet handle is meaningless. Citations to and quotes of competent legal authority are not. My quotes and citations outweigh your brain farts, such as your still hilarious about what acts do, or do not, constitute a crime of one person against another person.
It is correct to state that the right to life is an inalienable right that man cannot take away. Amendment V: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless...." It is correct to state that the DoI, a political statement, refers to inalienable rights, such as the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, except for their slaves, and the inalienable right to life. It is correct to state that the DoI has never been adopted as the law of any jurisdiction. The paramount law of the United States explicitly provides for capital punishment. While you maintain that the right to life is an inalienable right that man can not take away, the law of the land provides for executions. The several states and the United States have executed man and woman, using such methods as firing squad, hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection. The objects of the exercise found their supposed inalienable right was quite alienable.
If any of the above group use a weapon of any type in self defense, a fully informed jury, judging both the facts and the law of the case at hand [self defense] would be duty bound to rule the defendant innocent. Of course, the person ineligible to possess a weapon, or if the weapon was unlawful to possess, would be guilty of illegal possession of a weapon. The right to self-defense does not authorize unlawful possession of a weapon. In the Bernhard Goetz case, he was found not guilty of four counts of attempted murder, three counts of assault in the first degree, but was found guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (N.Y.P.L. 265.02). Goetz served time as a result of the criminal conviction. People v Pons, Ct App NY, 68 NY2d 264, 266 (1986)
In People v Almodovar (62 N.Y.2d 126, supra), where defendant was charged with counts of murder, assault and criminal possession of a weapon, we held that the court correctly refused to charge justification as a defense to criminal possession of a weapon, second degree. There, defendant claimed that he came into possession of the weapon by wresting control of it from the victim who had attacked him with a gun and a screwdriver. We concluded that "the only charge defendant was entitled to on the [possession] count of the indictment was temporary innocent possession" (id., at p 130) and that any benefit "he was entitled to because of the claim of self-defense pertained to the use of a weapon and he received that when the court charged justification in connection with the counts of attempted murder and assault" (id., at pp 130-131). Emphasizing that crimes involving possession of a weapon are distinct from those involving its use, we observed that once "the unlawful possession of the weapon is established, the possessory crime is complete and any unlawful use of the weapon is punishable as a separate crime" (id., at p 130). Juries have consistently found the guilty party to be guilty, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary. The right to self-defense does not infer a right to unlawful possession of a weapon.
#208. To: nolu chan, continuing on with his strange obsession.. (#207) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's -----
Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the last thread nolu posted. Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat.
It's like rock 'n' roll, the hits just keep on coming. Continuing to review your legal incompetence, You imagine you're 'hitting' me? How idiotic, -- all you're doing is displaying your obsessive weirdness, by posting old threads on which you and I disagreed, most of which you left, unable to prove your points. You're acting like a real crazy guy on FR, 'Roscoe'.. Keep up the good work.
#210. To: tpaine (#208)
Both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat. tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat. Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=45#45
To: Congressman Billybob http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1149329/posts?page=46#46
To: tpaine Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney.
#211. To: nolu chan (#210) In tpaineworld, certified lunatics have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And to deposit their turds of thought upon the internet. I prefer to print them out, cut them into 4-inch squares, and store them in the little reading room to see if any of tpaine's ----
Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... Again, I urge everyone who is still interested in this discussion to read at least the last portions of the thread nolu posted, where both he and robertpaulsen slink away from the argument, in defeat.
tpaine only wishes I would slink away. I have left him hit from argument like a trapped rat.
Anyone can read the thread in question, wherein both you and Paulsen quit posting.
Whenever tpaine presents his clueless interpretations of the Constitution to an attorney, he is told that he is a fool. Congressman Billybob, the late John Armor, was an attorney. Big deal. Most anyone on FR at that time could also testify that he was a big bag of wind.. --- Just as you experienced yourself.. Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing..
#212. To: tpaine (#211)
Yada yada, --- on you go with your silly effort to prove something, -- any damn thing... One will have to gain entry to tpaine's mind to find a place where anyone has ever slinked away from tpaine in defeat. Here on the tpaine vanity thread, he has been reduced to responding with "yada, yada, yada," because he is unable to debate the merits of his inane legal arguments, or the lack of such merts. So far, tpain has opined that the courts are wrong, the lawyers are wrong, anyone who disagrees with his nonsense is insane, and has cited imaginary comments. As he has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time for basic history lessons. Today's lesson is Judicial Review, as explained in the constitutional debates prior to ratification. Reality is readily found, tpaine's bloviations are unsupported. JUDICIAL REVIEW: Farrand and Elliot, Constitutional Debates Farrand's Records is a record of the Federal Constitutional Convention, in three volumes. Elliott's Debates is a record of the State Conventions on the Constitution in five volumes. 1 Farrand 21-22: [James Madison]
8. Resd. that the Executive and a convenient number of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature before it shall operate, & every act of a particular Legislature before a Negative thereon shall be final; and that the dissent of the said Council shall amount to a rejection, unless the Act of the National Legislature be again passed, or that of a particular Legislature be again negatived by of the members of each branch. Note: dernier resort means last resort. - - - - - 1 Farrand 97: [Elbridge Gerry]
(First) Clause (of Proposition 8th) relating to a Council of Revision taken into consideration. - - - - - 2 Farrand 27: [Governeur Morris and Roger Sherman]
(The next. —) "To negative all laws passed by the several States (contravening in the opinion of the Nat: Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of ye Union") - - - - - 2 Farrand 28: [James Madison]
In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be willing instruments of the wicked & arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild & certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. - - - - - 2 Farrand 93: [James Madison]
He considered the difference between a system founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a Constitution. The former in point of moral obligation might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. 1. A law violating a treaty ratified by a preexisting law, might be respected by the Judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 131: [Samuel Adams]
Your excellency's first proposition is, "that it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated to Congress are reserved to the several states, to be by them exercised." This appears, to my mind, to be a summary of a bill of rights, which gentlemen are anxious to obtain. It removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting the matter, and gives assurance that, if any law made by the federal government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution, and inconsistent with the constitution of this state, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 196: [Oliver Elsworth]
If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. - - - - - 2 Elliott 443: [George Nicholas]
Upon what principle is it contended that the sovereign power resides in the state governments? The honorable gentleman has said truly, that there can be no subordinate sovereignty. Now, if there cannot, my position is, that the sovereignty resides in the people ; they have not parted with it; they have only dispensed such portions of power as were conceived necessary for the public welfare. This Constitution stands upon this broad principle. - - - - - 2 Elliott 445: [James Wilson]
As far as I can understand the idea of magistracy in every government, this seems to be a proper arrangement; the judicial department is considered as a part of the executive authority of government. Now, I have no idea that the authority should be restricted so as not to be able to perform its functions with full effect. I would not have the legislature sit to make laws which cannot be executed. It is not meant here that the laws shall be a dead letter: it is meant that they shall be carefully and duly considered before they are enacted, and that then they shall be honestly and faithfully executed. This observation naturally leads to a more particular consideration of the government before us. In order, sir, to give permanency, stability, and security to any government, I conceive it of essential importance, that its legislature should be restrained; that there should not only be what we call a passive, but an active power over it for, of all kinds of despotism, this is the most dreadful, and the most difficult to be corrected. With how much contempt have we seen the authority of the people treated by the legislature of this state! and how often have we seen it making laws in one session, that have been repealed the next, either on account of the fluctuation of party, or their own impropriety. - - - - - 4 Elliott 553: [John Marshall]
These, sir, are the points of federal jurisdiction to which he objects, with a few exceptions. Let us examine each of them with a supposition that the same impartiality will be observed there as in other courts, and then see if any mischief will result from them. With respect to its cognizance in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, he says that, the laws of the United States being paramount to the laws of the particular states, there is no case but what this will extend to. Has the government of the United States power to make laws on every subject? Does he understand it so? Can they make laws affecting the mode of transferring property, or contracts, or claims, between citizens of the same state? Can they go beyond the delegated powers? If they were to make a law not warranted by any of the powers enumerated, it would be considered by the judges as an infringement of the Constitution which they are to guard. They would not consider such a law as coming under their jurisdiction. They would declare it void.
#213. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#212) (Edited) --- nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed --- Nolu wrote this proposed amendment that follows, and claims that it would be constitutional..
The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment
AMENDMENT 28.
Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only.
Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment.
Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Since posting this thread, I'm flat amazed at how many self described 'conservatives' agree with Nolu, that a tyranny of a (super?) majority could repeal the 2nd Amendment, in a supposedly constitutional manner. Now, of course, nolu is still posting opinions from courts and 'expert' authorities that agree with his opinions. -- None of which, in my opinion, have proved his point. - -- (Although in his last post, oddly enough, he quotes from opinions that agree with points I have made, previously). -- His other efforts, to smear me, --- only reinforce, in my opinion, nolu' s obsessive and almost fanatical delusion that the majority rules in this Republic. We formed this Republic under the rule of law, Constitutional law, to protect individual rights. -- Passing amendments that repealed individual rights would in effect, nullify our constitutional principles..
#216. To: tpaine (#213)
As tpaine has been reduced to unintelligible spluttering, it is time to continue the basic history lessons. Today's lesson continues Judicial Power and the Supremacy Clause. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 20, of the Judicial Power, p. 188:
CHAPTER XX. - - - - - - - - - - William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, 1825, Chapter 30, Of checks and controls on other branches of the Government, p. 277:
Secondly, as this may not always be a sufficient restraint, the judicial power presents an effectual barrier against its excesses, the observations on which need not be repeated. But, as observed, the judicial power possesses no spontaneous motion—it must be called into action by the application of others—either individuals or constituted authorities, and in the mean time, the obnoxious law may not only take its place in the statute book, but be injuriously acted upon. The third corrective therefore is in the hands of the people, who do not, as disingenuously remarked, make no other use of their power than to give it away. The biennial election of the house of representatives, of which the people can by no artifice be deprived, secures to them the power of removing every member of that house who has shown either an inability to comprehend, or an unwillingness to conform to the transcendent obligations of the constitution, which he has sworn to support. Here, then, we have the protection and safety unknown to those countries where either the legislature elect themselves, or enjoy an hereditary right, or where, although the representative principle may be nominally kept up, its exercise may be suspended or postponed at the pleasure of another part of the government. - - - - - - - - - - Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, pages 693-694:
§ 1830. The next clause is, "This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. And the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703:
§ 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy.
#218. To: nolu chan (#216) Please continue your hissy fit display though.. It's really getting amusing.. --- Particularly amusing is your last quote, which makes my point: ---
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 3, 1833, page 703: ---- § 1836. From this supremacy of the constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, within their constitutional scope, arises the duty of courts of justice to declare any unconstitutional law passed by congress or by a state legislature void. So, in like manner, the same duty arises, whenever any other department of the national or state governments exceeds its constitutional functions. But the judiciary of the United States has no general jurisdiction to declare acts of the several states void, unless they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States, notwithstanding they are repugnant to the state constitution. Such a power belongs to it only, when it sits to administer the local law of a state, and acts exactly, as a state tribunal is bound to act. But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy.
Thank you, again...
#219. To: tpaine (#218)
But upon this subject it seems unnecessary to dwell, since the right of all courts, state as well as national, to declare unconstitutional laws void, seems settled beyond the reach of judicial controversy. Although you have proven your utter lack of reading comprehension, I will continue, at your request. As you make believe you are unable to fathom the bare fundamentals of judicial review, I will now cover your beloved Supremacy Clause, at the mention of which, magic unicorns fly out your arse and transform it into something previously unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Replies to Comment # 219. There are no replies to Comment # 219.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 219. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|