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.
Professors say NRA is misreading Constitution
- Thread starter nralife
- Start date
paratrooper
New member
I think you guys are missing the point . In academia it's " Publish or Perish " . They are on a list . Their names have been published . They have job security for a time . They have made MONGO huge points with all the knee jerk , left wing , bed wetting liberals in Amerika . Praise Lenin , Hail Trotsky , blessed be the name Karl Marx. Not to mention getting on Hillary's Christmas card list . Unless , of course the polls indicate that she must be Jewish to win in New York . In which case make that a Holiday card list .
------------------
TomDeCarver SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
------------------
TomDeCarver SASS AMERICAN LEGION NRA
At what grade level do these morons read? Have they bothered to read the writings of the Revolutionary period? How about the Federalist (or Anti-Federalist) Papers? There's no way that they could possibly have done so and still argue that the RKBA is anything but an individual right.
Truly, these people are not students of history at all. They are on the verge of making the same mistake that the Red Coats made at Lexington and Concord all over again.
Truly, these people are not students of history at all. They are on the verge of making the same mistake that the Red Coats made at Lexington and Concord all over again.
Bobbalouie
New member
The problem in our legal system is not on a tactical level, it is at a strategic one. There are a couple of philosophical principles which go to the core of current judicial activism:
Post-modern solipsism: The concept that there is no truth external to the individual and his own experience - only personal perception exists. As a result, there is no "truth" or "original meaning" to be protected in our founding documents, there is only the value of our PERCEPTION of that meaning. These documents become only frameworks to serve us as we thrash out their meaning in the courts, by the second, and following, pervading concept:
Aristotilian, dualistic defining philosophy in law: The idea here is that universal truth, meaning, and principles can only be arrived at by dealing with, defining, or organizing all of the individual cases around us. In other words, in court, deal with all the particular, individual problems on a particular issue and you will eventually build enough case law to form a universal law.
The problem with BOTH philosophies is that they essentially reject either the existence or validity of principled law - as in Locke's concept of "natural rights" which he based, in a secular form, on Rutherford's concept of "higher law" from God. Agreeing with Rutherford and Witherspoon, the founding fathers stated that the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were pre-existing, devinely-mandated rights.
Judicial activism and case-law-precident-based law definition are AT ODDS with the concept of principled laws. From this philosophy you find springing the notion that anything not specifically mentioned in a law is permissable.
If you ask me, one of the most pivotal and dangerous moments in our modern time was in the 1980s when the congress (constitutionally tasked with creating law) secretly sent a copy of a proposed piece of legislation over to the Supreme Court (constitutionally tasked with applying to individuals the law created by the congress) for approval before passing it, so they could be guaranteed it wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In that act, in all practical terms, they forfeited their constitutional autonomy and equality with the judicial system and became subjugated to it.
Bobbalouie
Whaddya think?
Post-modern solipsism: The concept that there is no truth external to the individual and his own experience - only personal perception exists. As a result, there is no "truth" or "original meaning" to be protected in our founding documents, there is only the value of our PERCEPTION of that meaning. These documents become only frameworks to serve us as we thrash out their meaning in the courts, by the second, and following, pervading concept:
Aristotilian, dualistic defining philosophy in law: The idea here is that universal truth, meaning, and principles can only be arrived at by dealing with, defining, or organizing all of the individual cases around us. In other words, in court, deal with all the particular, individual problems on a particular issue and you will eventually build enough case law to form a universal law.
The problem with BOTH philosophies is that they essentially reject either the existence or validity of principled law - as in Locke's concept of "natural rights" which he based, in a secular form, on Rutherford's concept of "higher law" from God. Agreeing with Rutherford and Witherspoon, the founding fathers stated that the rights set forth in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were pre-existing, devinely-mandated rights.
Judicial activism and case-law-precident-based law definition are AT ODDS with the concept of principled laws. From this philosophy you find springing the notion that anything not specifically mentioned in a law is permissable.
If you ask me, one of the most pivotal and dangerous moments in our modern time was in the 1980s when the congress (constitutionally tasked with creating law) secretly sent a copy of a proposed piece of legislation over to the Supreme Court (constitutionally tasked with applying to individuals the law created by the congress) for approval before passing it, so they could be guaranteed it wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. In that act, in all practical terms, they forfeited their constitutional autonomy and equality with the judicial system and became subjugated to it.
Bobbalouie
Whaddya think?
This is just spin by some liberal peofessors. All they have to do is read the militia laws which were in effect when the constitution was adopted and they will see that these laws made it mandatory for ALL adult male citizens to purcahse and keep standard military weapons.
The Second Amendment cannot refer to the National Guard which did not exist until after 1900.
[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited April 02, 2000).]
The Second Amendment cannot refer to the National Guard which did not exist until after 1900.
[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited April 02, 2000).]