Do Senators have the right?

W

WSM MAGNUM

New member
I would like to ask some questions here regarding a reply I made in a previous thread.

First, am I correct to say that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are law of the land?
If so, does it not mean that no one has the power to change or amend any part of those bills without a vote of the people?

Second, everyone knows we now have a very anti-gun Congress. To name a few we have Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Herb Kohl, Dianne Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Charles Schumer, and Dick Durbin. It seems that these senators are bent on banning guns and seeking to renew the semi-auto ban, close down gun shows, expand the Brady gun control law.
What gives these Senators the right to do these things? Does the Second Amendment mean anything to them?
.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Third, what gives Pelosi the right to decide what gun bills come to the floor? Sure enough any anti-gun bill that comes up will get to the floor, but any bill to prohibit such anti-gun bill will never see the light of day.
I read that Pelosi is F-rated and did not like how the NRA and GOA rates anti-gun senators and there was a bill that would prohibit NRA and GOA from rating candidates. How absurd. They want the right to attack anyone against them, but no one can say anything about their views when campaining. These people make me sick.

So, can anyone explain to me why for the past century or so, we have to keep fighting these crooks in Congress on gun rights that I think it is illegal for them to destroy?
 
Most of their votes are for illegal legislation. They get away with it, most of the time, because nobody calls them on it. The People, with a few exceptions, have been largely asleep. We trusted them, but the abuses have become so flagrant that the public is starting to wake up.

badbob
 
What gives these Senators the right to do these things? Does the Second Amendment mean anything to them?
Click to expand...
The fact that people agree with them. Start by convincing neighbors, friends and family about guns in a logical, reasoned manner. When I see people here bitch about liberals, bitch about higher education, bitch about abortion, bitch about drugs and gays and porn and flag burning and stem cell research and call Democrats socialists I see very clearly why we're losing our rights. One gun is useless against 50 voters.

When more conservative gun owners start realizing that their precious guns are supposed to defend everyone's freedom, not just their own, then maybe we'll see an upswing of eople who see the light and realize that we're not a bunch of mullet-toting, flannel-wearing, sister-fraking trailer trash rednecks watching NASCAR and eating mayonnase sandwiches. Show people that we don't want guns to impose strict conservative beliefs on others and we'll see more support.
 
First, a technical clarification: Nancy Pelosi is not a Senator; she is the incoming Speaker of the House of Representatives.

To the general point of the first post, Senators (and Representatives) can do anything they want. Just because a law may be unconstitutional does not mean that Congress can't pass the law. The Constitution does not provide for a review of a bill's constitutionality before it passes into law. Two things are supposed to put a quick stop to such shenanigans - the courts and the voters.

The courts should be slapping down unconstitutional laws as soon as they pop up. But when judges agree with what Congress has done and refuse to stop unconstitutional laws, the courts are neutered.

The voters should be replacing members of Congress who support unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately, most voters would not recognize an unconstitutional law if it bit them on the backside. More pathetically, most voters do no care if an unconstitutional law is passed unless it does something to irritate them personally. Even when Congress passes unconstitutional laws, a surprising number of voters simply like the outcome and could care less if the law is constitutional or not. All that members of Congress have to do to stay in office is pass out tax dollars and little favors to more of their constituents than they tick off by supporting unconstitutional laws.
 
The fact that people agree with them. Start by convincing neighbors, friends and family about guns in a logical, reasoned manner. When I see people here bitch about liberals, bitch about higher education, bitch about abortion, bitch about drugs and gays and porn and flag burning and stem cell research and call Democrats socialists I see very clearly why we're losing our rights. One gun is useless against 50 voters.

When more conservative gun owners start realizing that their precious guns are supposed to defend everyone's freedom, not just their own, then maybe we'll see an upswing of people who see the light and realize that we're not a bunch of mullet-toting, flannel-wearing, sister-fraking trailer trash rednecks watching NASCAR and eating mayonnaise sandwiches. Show people that we don't want guns to impose strict conservative beliefs on others and we'll see more support.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! It helps to understand the Constitution and government, of which we are a part.

Bob
 
Redworm,
Agreed, which is why I endorse a nationwide "take a liberal shooting" day.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, but I also think that it would perhaps be more effective to take an "uncommitted fence sitter" shooting rather than take a liberal shooting, given the choice between the 2.

Why? The liberal probably has more in the way of preconceived notions that, even when "lubricated" with a range session or 2, will get in the way of their coming around to a sensible RKBA standpoint. OTOH, someone who has no preconceived notions hasn't got those notions to get out of the way, and is therefore more amenable to rapidly becoming a RKBA proponent. Or, put another way, rather than try and convert the hard core anti-, it may be just as effective to marginalize them by making them the minority. By marginalizing the anti's, we take them out of the political picture, neutralizing their effect and likewise the effect of the grabbers in the legislatures. Or, put another way, make it so that pro-RKBA stances become part and parcel of the political mainstream (as it should be).

It is a matter of return on effort. I feel that we would get a better return on our effort focusing on the more easily converted rather than on the hard core anti's. Even though it IS more satisfying to turn an enemy into a friend...
 
Most of their votes are for illegal legislation. They get away with it, most of the time, because nobody calls them on it.
Click to expand...

The longer version is that those accused via such legislation plea bargain rather than fight. That keeps the illegality of such legislation from being debated by judges and keeps decisions that moot the law from being made. That's the beauty of Minimum Mandatory sentences that are draconian. You don't want to risk losing that sort of thing, so you accept your 12 years or so in a bargain. The writers of this legislation know you won't fight, so the crimes they are committing against the constitution will never come to light.

When more conservative gun owners start realizing that their precious guns are supposed to defend everyone's freedom, not just their own, then maybe we'll see an upswing of eople who see the light and realize that we're not a bunch of mullet-toting, flannel-wearing, sister-fraking trailer trash rednecks watching NASCAR and eating mayonnase sandwiches. Show people that we don't want guns to impose strict conservative beliefs on others and we'll see more support.When more conservative gun owners start realizing that their precious guns are supposed to defend everyone's freedom, not just their own, then maybe we'll see an upswing of eople who see the light and realize that we're not a bunch of mullet-toting, flannel-wearing, sister-fraking trailer trash rednecks watching NASCAR and eating mayonnase sandwiches. Show people that we don't want guns to impose strict conservative beliefs on others and we'll see more support.
Click to expand...

Hehheh. I said something like this once and it was removed. You go !
 
I would suggest that some of you hunters take someone hunting who isn't a hunter. I know three or four hunters but none of them have taken the hint so far. So I don't hunt.
 
Hehheh. I said something like this once and it was removed. You go !
Click to expand...
:o

Yeah I wanted to make a thread about that subject specifically but I'm worried it would turn into a debate about those very issues that I feel conservatives should compromise on if they honestly feel that the second amendment is the most important.

I've been told that I should be compromise and vote for someone that wants to ban gay marriage because that candidate is friendlier on guns. Shouldn't those bible thumpers be willing to make the same compromise and vote for a pro-gay marriage candidate that's a supporter of the RKBA?

insert any controversial issue (often religious in nature) that liberals and conservatives refuse to see eye to eye on
 
Frankly, I understand that you can't please everybody, and advocate that the ENTIRE BoR be adhered to strictly, whether I happen to like a particular amendment or not.

Doing otherwise (like we're doing) creates a mess (like the one we have).
 
Judges are the problem.

Federal judges and especially the US Supreme Court judges are the real problem. They all took an oath to protect, obey and apply the US Constitution as written, but many of them interpret the Constitution how they think it should be read or applied, some have even supported International Standards. They apply todays language when interpreting and applying the Constitution, when they should be applying the language from which it was written. They took an oath and many of them are breaking this oath. The Federal Gov't, Executive Branch, should do its sworn duty and arrest, charge and prosecute every judge for high treason who breaks their oath. If these "Progressive" people in our society (including judges) do not want to follow the US Constitution, then they should work to have it amended, there is a Constitutional process for this. I think the Founding Fathers slipped up when they didn't provide for more protection from judges who do not follow the Constitution. I haven't heard of one being arrested, impeached, fired, etc... as of yet. And half of todays US Supreme Court should be.
 
they can pass any legislation they want to as long as

1:the people keep voting them in and
2:the supreme court doesn't stop them
 
re: Judges

Judges are doing what they are supposed to do. Judge. And perform a check function on the idiocies of the legislature.

In another thread, I mentioned that I'd like the 1st amendment modernized so that 1/3 of the available radio spectrum reserved for the use of the people, at government expense. I think a discussion like we have here on a public level (like TV and radio) wouldn't hurt. Senators don't have to visit here and identify themselves and explain themselves. On government-paid (otherwise nobody could afford the equipment) TV and radio, we might get a little insight as to just who is for just what, and in time to do something about it.

Communication is the key (the alternative is government in the dark) and right now, the average person has NONE viz. senators.
 
judges are possibly worse than the senate. when over half of the senators vote in a stupid bill we have only ourselves the voters who elected them to blame. when a judge decides gay marriage should be legal all of a sudden when it never has been. there is nothing anybody can do short of a constitutional amendment, yet they don't seem to read the constitution anyway. we didnt elect the judge, we can't fire him, and the only way to reverse his ruling is another higher court which we have no control over. if 60 boneheaded senators pass a stupid law all we have to do is vote out 11 or more of those boneheads and the new senate can write a new law to reverse the old one.

invention 45 WHAT? modernise the first amendment? the first amendment is about freedom of speech. it means the government will not persecute you for what you say. as that happens in many countries. how do you take that to mean government (taxpayer) sponsored speech. if you want more pbs or something that would be a whole new law and not a damned """""""""reinterpretation"""""""""" of the first amendment. I personally love c-span and c-span2 I think the legislative branch is very transparent for people who can watch those shows without falling asleep. when it comes to the actions of the legislator, I'm afraid I have to blame the voter and every government and history teacher that voter ever had.
 
Sorry, folks. Legislators are subject to media availability and to the direction of the wind as reflected therein. So theyr'e writing law based on what is the hype-of-the-week, which is how we get idiotic laws.

Judges (and juries), on the other hand, are looking at the results of this sad situation on each individual citizen (you know, that thing that the Constitution is supposed to protect from government power) and deciding what oughta happen in a particular instance, each of which is a little different. A great deal of discretion should be available to both judges and juries, including juror nullification.

Taxpayer-sponsored free speech, I'd argue, is as important as is taxpayer-sponsored war. And I'm only asking for 1/3 of the available bandwidth. 1/3 for the military. 1/3 for commercical purposes. 1/3 for individual or group access on a 1st come 1st served basis.

And judges CAN be fired. They can be impeached and censured.
 
Invention, I'm not saying your idea is a bad one, only that it isn't necessarily a first amendment issue, but more of a new bill that should be considered.

that's what frustrates me is people want to take the back door in implementing their agenda instead of debating the issues on their merits. nowadays if a person wants under god out of the pledge, or gay marriage, or abortion, they sue sue sue. then all of a sudden we develop new rights like the right to kill your child, how is that part of our rights to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness? that's my beef with the courts.
 
The U.S. Constitution contains language specifying how it is to be amended, and it certainly does NOT require a "vote of the people"! The Senate and the House of Congress have the right to amend the Constitution, provided they pass the amendment with a vote sufficient to satisfy the requirements as contained in Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

For those who post about the loss of "rights," and yet have actually never READ the Constitution, here is Article V of the U.S. Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...

So, to answer the question: YES. Congress (of both the Federal government AND the States) can change the "law of the land" without a "vote of the people." They can do this because the "law of the land" SAYS SO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top