Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Yes, I believe that is the same idea Frank is trying to explain.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NRA is calling ATF to review the bump stock!!
- Thread starter jrinne0430
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Yes, I believe that is the same idea Frank is trying to explain.
1. The Madison quote is true but not relevant. The SCOTUS does not have "all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary".
2. The Jefferson quote is specifically talking about SCOTUS usurping power from the executive branch, not about their general power to determine the constitutionality of laws set before them for review by the judicial process. It would be instructive for you to read the entire letter from which that quote was taken--or at least the entire paragraph because it has a lot of good information. http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-01-02-0348 It clearly states that each branch has the power to determine constitutionality and act in its own sphere based on that determination with the powers afforded it, but that each branch has limited power over the other branches.
"...the judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment..." Clearly Jefferson says that they are afforded the right to determine constitutionality and act on that determination.
"...but the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution..." Just as clearly, Jefferson indicates that the Executive is also bound to make determinations and to act on his determination of constitutionality.
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." But here's where the problem arises. When they operate in their own sphere of action they are ok, it's when they also start to try to control the other branches of the government that the problem arises.
Furthermore, it clearly addresses your contention that constitutional rights may not be regulated at all. Jefferson clearly spells out the intent of the framers to allow some reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights, albeit by the state legislatures more than by Congress.
"...we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so."
3. I'm not sure what you intended to convey by including the Hamilton quote. It clearly states that the courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws, a point which seems exactly counter to your arguments.
It may or may not be true that it has more power than the framers intended, but it's a long way from being a monarchy and the U.S. is obviously still a representative republic.
2. The Jefferson quote is specifically talking about SCOTUS usurping power from the executive branch, not about their general power to determine the constitutionality of laws set before them for review by the judicial process. It would be instructive for you to read the entire letter from which that quote was taken--or at least the entire paragraph because it has a lot of good information. http://rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/default.xqy?keys=FOEA-print-04-01-02-0348 It clearly states that each branch has the power to determine constitutionality and act in its own sphere based on that determination with the powers afforded it, but that each branch has limited power over the other branches.
"...the judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment..." Clearly Jefferson says that they are afforded the right to determine constitutionality and act on that determination.
"...but the Executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, was bound to remit the execution of it; because that power has been confided to him by the constitution..." Just as clearly, Jefferson indicates that the Executive is also bound to make determinations and to act on his determination of constitutionality.
"...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." But here's where the problem arises. When they operate in their own sphere of action they are ok, it's when they also start to try to control the other branches of the government that the problem arises.
Furthermore, it clearly addresses your contention that constitutional rights may not be regulated at all. Jefferson clearly spells out the intent of the framers to allow some reasonable restrictions on constitutional rights, albeit by the state legislatures more than by Congress.
"...we deny that Congress have a right to controul the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the states, and their exclusive right, to do so."
3. I'm not sure what you intended to convey by including the Hamilton quote. It clearly states that the courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws, a point which seems exactly counter to your arguments.
Nobody is "proposing" anything. Stating how things are is not a proposal or endorsement, it's simply an observation of fact.What is being proposed here by a couple of highly educated folks is that we fought a revolution for nothing?
That's a stretch. SCOTUS can not create law, it can only rule on the legality/constitutionality of existing laws created by the legislature or of actions performed by others. Nor does it have the powers of the Executive branch.That in the end, we are not really a representative republic but instead a nation under rule of a monarchy of 9 lawyers in black robes sitting on the SCOTUS?
It may or may not be true that it has more power than the framers intended, but it's a long way from being a monarchy and the U.S. is obviously still a representative republic.
They have authority to issue opinions, and in this case, they were correct. The term machine gun has a specific legal definition, to wit:The BATFE should have never been allowed to have any say whatsoever about bump fire rifle stocks.
Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger
Bump stocks simply do not fit that definition. This brings us to an interesting point about the NRA's response: they want the ATF to issue a ruling rather than supporting legislation.
But, as I've mentioned, the ATF can't rule that bump stocks are machine guns, since it's still one shot per trigger pull. The only way to outlaw them is through legislation.
Everybody chew on that for a second. The NRA has taken the focus off legislation (which can ban them) and put it on the ATF (who can't ban them). There's more going on here, especially considering that Marion Hammer has involved herself in this.
Since I was asked. And I had not stated it.
We are too far down the rabbit hole for voting to return us to the point the BOR is honored and limitations placed on it by the COTUS are abided by by all branches of gov.
SCOTUS legislates from the bench and has for decades. It has no such authority. Obama care was rewritten by the court so it could pass as just an example.
Congress passes laws clearly violating the BOR and know they do when they pass them.
The create agencies and empower non elected officials to create regulations that are then treated as laws.
My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written. Not as interpreted by 9 lawyers depending on which political leaning the most of them have.
There are only two ways left to accomplish that.
A article 5 constitutional convention.
Or wide spread non compliance and jury nullification as was done over Prohibition.
Actually there are three ways but nobody wants things to sour to that point.
Once that has been accomplished put the death penalty in place for any elected official attempting to step out of the bounds clearly laid out in the BOR
as it is written. No court interpreting or just plain making it up as they go. Which they do now.
And death penalty if they try.
We are not the country we were founded to be.
We live under a Fed gov that had hilariously overstepped it's authority in all three branches for more than a century.
Voting has clearly been shown inadequate to remedy that. Fortunately the founders put in place other methods of bring the Fed monster to heel.
We are too far down the rabbit hole for voting to return us to the point the BOR is honored and limitations placed on it by the COTUS are abided by by all branches of gov.
SCOTUS legislates from the bench and has for decades. It has no such authority. Obama care was rewritten by the court so it could pass as just an example.
Congress passes laws clearly violating the BOR and know they do when they pass them.
The create agencies and empower non elected officials to create regulations that are then treated as laws.
My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written. Not as interpreted by 9 lawyers depending on which political leaning the most of them have.
There are only two ways left to accomplish that.
A article 5 constitutional convention.
Or wide spread non compliance and jury nullification as was done over Prohibition.
Actually there are three ways but nobody wants things to sour to that point.
Once that has been accomplished put the death penalty in place for any elected official attempting to step out of the bounds clearly laid out in the BOR
as it is written. No court interpreting or just plain making it up as they go. Which they do now.
And death penalty if they try.
We are not the country we were founded to be.
We live under a Fed gov that had hilariously overstepped it's authority in all three branches for more than a century.
Voting has clearly been shown inadequate to remedy that. Fortunately the founders put in place other methods of bring the Fed monster to heel.
I have nightmares about that very idea. Rewriting the Constitution at this point would be an utter disaster.A article 5 constitutional convention.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
How is it that you don't recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true meaning of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that you know what the Bill of Rights and Constitution really mean as written, and that others don't. Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that branches of government are honoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as written? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?Ghost1958 said:...My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written....
It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
Last edited:
Just sticking to the 2A for simplicity sake.How is it that you don't recognize that you're implying by that statement that you know the true mean of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that you know what the Bill of Rights and Constitution really mean as written, and that others don't. Aren't there some of our fellow citizens who believe that branches of government are honoring the Bill of Rights and the Constitution as written? So I guess you insist that even though there is disagreement, you're correct?
It seems sometimes that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.
I can read a clear one sentence statement.
And know what it says without a legal degree.
I also know that for to be regulations put on the rtkaba politicians and judges have to pull phrases like "not unlimited, public welfare, etc "out of thin air for they certainly are not written in the 2A.
I'm no smarter than anyone else. They can read the BOR also and all of them are plainly written in clear easy to understand English.
Everyone else knows what they say as well.
It's not until politicians and judges with agendas that are prohibited by the BOR that the meaning of plainly listed God given or natural rights as you prefer get twisted into pretzels that are infringement. When those same politicians and judges are in positions of power like the Congress and the scotus we get the agenda approved watered down version of the BOR it was never intended to be.
All due respect I'll bow out now and not respond to in this thread anymore.
I'm far from alone in my beliefs in this nation.
But I'll not change your opinion that any law the SCOTUS upholds bar none are legitimate laws.
And you certainly will not change mine that laws that violate the COTUS are null and void as if they were never written.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)
Regardless what a monarchy of a handful of judges say.
How does any of that relate to my point by point rebuttal of your previous claims using YOUR OWN SOURCES as citations?Since I was asked. And I had not stated it.
We are too far down the rabbit hole for voting to return us to the point the BOR is honored and ...
...
...overstepped it's authority in all three branches for more than a century.
Voting has clearly been shown inadequate to remedy that. Fortunately the founders put in place other methods of bring the Fed monster to heel.
1. The fact that you included the Hamilton quote in one of your last comments, a quote which clearly contradicts many of your claims, calls the accuracy of this assertion into question.I can read a clear one sentence statement. And know what it says...
2. The problem is that context is often required for full understanding. And you don't get context if you only focus on single sentences and ignore the context as you did with the Jefferson quote.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That's what you think, but dating back to the beginnings of our republic there have been a lot of folks who have disagreed with your interpretation. Scalia's opinion in Heller outlines the long history of the regulation of the RKBA.Ghost1958 said:Just sticking to the 2A for simplicity sake.
I can read a clear one sentence statement.
And know what it says without a legal degree....
So you're sticking with "tyranny is bad unless it's my tyranny."
Ghost1958 said:...And you certainly will not change mine that laws that violate the COTUS are null and void as if they were never written.
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)....
I wouldn't dream of trying to change your mind about that, because it's correct. But you don't understand who it is who has the final say as to whether a law is repugnant to the Constitution. Here's a hint; it's not you. The Founding Fathers decided that the final say on the question would the Supreme Court's.
Indeed that very concept comes from the Supreme Court as part of the process of judicial review you so disdain. While you disclaim the legitimacy of Marbury, you are happy enough attempt to shanghai it to support your arguments. So let's look at Marbury v. Madison (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)):
- 1 Cranch 137, at 177:
...an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void....
- at 177 -- 178:
...If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.....
- at 180:
...a law repugnant to the constitution is void...
Of course, it's still the province of the courts, and not you, to decide if a law is repugnant to the Constitution.
My solution is that all branches of gov be forced to honor the bor and COTUS as written. Not as interpreted by 9 lawyers depending on which political leaning the most of them have.
Not interpreted by 9 lawyers, but interpreted by you, as only you know the true path???
Once that has been accomplished put the death penalty in place for any elected official attempting to step out of the bounds clearly laid out in the BOR
as it is written. No court interpreting or just plain making it up as they go. Which they do now.
And death penalty if they try.
OK, NOW we come down to it. Thanks for finally being upfront about it. Anyone disagreeing with your interpretation, dies. That's quite plain.
Your solution is giving YOU the power of life and death over anyone who YOU say is stepping out of line. Would there be a trial for the accused? or just your pronouncement that they have stepped out of line, so off with their heads??
I don't see this as significantly different from other dictators, despots or radical imams. Only that your holy book is the US Constitution "as written", and anyone going outside your definition of the true faith shall be put to death.
It appears our ability to have a rational conversation based in reality just ended.
For that reason alone, closed.44AMP said:It appears our ability to have a rational conversation based in reality just ended.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.