Jeremiah

Cincinnati, OH

#3302 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you so absolutist about the phrase "A well regulated militia?"
Militia are armed citizens that are not state or federal employees.

The 9th and 10th amendment explicitly mention what entity decides the limits of gun ownership, and it is not the central government or state governments.

The "people" decide the limits of gun ownership, not the central government or the state governments.

The people exercise their law making power through local government.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3303 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is your complaint, than there is no relevance as to what types of procedures are covered under the service. The offending action was mandating the insurance itself and the argument ends there.
Since when is forcing religious entities to purchase insurance that provides services that goes directly against their teachings not forcing them? The mandate is both forcing insurance companies to provide the service and the churches to purchase it by both making sure no other insurance is available as well as penalizing the religious organizations for not purchasing it.

If it wasn't mandatory to purchase insurance, or purchase insurance that provides for abortions, then there wouldn't be a problem. This is an act of the government, not all private enterprises saying we will all the sudden offer nothing but this type of insurance. There is no ability for religious organizations to purchase insurance or even create their own insurance to comply with the federal coverage mandates that do no require the insurance to supply abortions and/or contraceptives. For some reason, a woman's right to sleep around without any responsibility of their own is more important to this administration the the freedom of religion.

Now you can construe that as an attack on women's rights, but you have to remember, the rights in consideration are the right to kill their unborn baby and the right to have others pay (provide financial assistance) for their screwing. I understand that everything is expensive and after shelling out $20 at a bar for drinks, neither the man nor the woman have the $1.50 left over to buy a condom from the men's bathroom or pay the $12 for a 6 pack of Trojans, but that problem is fixed by bettering the economy, not forcing religious institutions to violate their own teachings.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3304 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you so absolutist about the phrase "A well regulated militia?"
We are, when it'd defined as it should be:

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3305 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you so absolutist about the phrase "A well regulated militia?"
Convenience, of course.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3306 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, I didn't think you had much. Two articles by the same person who does a lot of inferring in his presentation of history. This is also the same guy who wrote that lawsuits were good for America. I doubt this shrill should be taken at face value other then to create controversy in order for his ilk to maintain job security.
It's sort of like all those idiots who claim Christmas is a pagan holiday. True, it has cooped a lot of pagan customs due primarily to the fact that the newly converted roman emperor did away with pagan holidays and instituted what he deemed as christian holidays, it doesn't make it a pagan holiday as the express intent was to remove the pagan association in the first place.
Bogus cites the federalist papers. It is interesting because the federalist papers argue that the bill of rights (the 12 original proposed amendments to the US constitution) were not necessary because the US federal government only has the ability to do what is expressly authorized in the constitution therefore couldn't take the rights away in the first place. It is argued that te placement of a bill of rights would be construed as the only rights and the federal government would pervert itself into taking more then it is capable of under the constitution. Regardless of any inference he reads into the developing situation of the second amendment (the forth originally-), the thought on the subject was always that the federal government could not take the right to keep and use arms from the citizens in the first place.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights." Alexander Hamilton, federalist #84 discussing the bill of rights.
Your source is discredited by obvious interpretations of the work he cites.
You're overstating the implication of Hamilton's thoughts on the matter, as if in and of themselves, they represent a definitive interpretation of the final product. That's simply not true.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3307 Jan 26, 2013
And by the way, lawsuits absolutely ARE good for democracy.

woof
Jeremiah

Cincinnati, OH

#3308 Jan 26, 2013
The people never delegated health care insurance authority to the federal government.

The US constitution never recognizes a federal lawmaking power to compel people to buy government-approved health insurance.

The US constitution never recognizes a federal lawmaking power to compel health care providers to offer government-approved health services.

Obamacare is just another power grab by the megalomaniacal leaders of Diversity.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#3309 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You mean to look into it deep enough to know that the senate was in fact in session when Obama made these recess appointments and that the judges involved in fact did say this was fact comparing it to making recess appointments when the senate is on a lunch break? The article you linked to goes as far as explaining that but perhaps you can explain why keeping the senate open for business during Bush's administration was enough to stop recess appointments (a senate that Obama was in fact part of) but all the sudden when it is inconvenient for Obama, it is meaningless.
Yes, perhaps looking into it will shed some light. The only thing is, you would need to open your eyes in order to notice it.
Using this particular procedural maneuver for the sole purpose of obstructing the machinations of government, regardless of which party is engaging in it, is abhorrent.

woof
Jeremiah

Cincinnati, OH

#3310 Jan 26, 2013
The people need a constitutional amendment to bar professional lawyers from public offices that create law.

Lawyers make money through litigation. More laws created by them are more opportunities for lawyers to make money through litigation of laws.

It is an inherent conflict of interest for a professional lawyer to be in a position to make public laws.

Remove the conflict of interest by barring lawyers from holding any public office that creates law: legislator, judges, president.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3311 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Its much more than that Tony.
woof
Despite long winded judges who may make it SEEM complicated, it really isn't.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3312 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Using this particular procedural maneuver for the sole purpose of obstructing the machinations of government, regardless of which party is engaging in it, is abhorrent.
woof
abhorrent or not, it does not make the unconstitutional appointment of posts any more constitutional or righteous. What it does is show that we have an administration who is willing to ignore the constitution that bounds and constrains his authority whenever he see it fit to do for any reason he thinks suffices.

Even if you are an Obama supporter, that alone should give you pause. If he thinks it suffices, it could very well be your freedom of speech or freedom from self incrimination, or your right to due process, or as we saw under Bush, the right to habeas corpus could very well be ignored.
Adif understanding

Chicago, IL

#3313 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You're overstating the implication of Hamilton's thoughts on the matter, as if in and of themselves, they represent a definitive interpretation of the final product. That's simply not true.
woof
It's very much just as true as Bogus's claim for support to racism in the federalist papers and the second amendment.

In short, he is wrong and his interpretations are liberalize grandeur separated from the reality he attempts to pull his insights from. It wouldn't surprise me if the term bogus meaning counterfeit and his last name are not connected on higher levels.

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3314 Jan 26, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Making things that take actual facts, thought, and analysis "simple" produces inaccurate conclusions Tony.
woof
Did you actually read Heller?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3315 Jan 26, 2013
Jeremiah wrote:
<quoted text>
Militia are armed citizens that are not state or federal employees.
The 9th and 10th amendment explicitly mention what entity decides the limits of gun ownership, and it is not the central government or state governments.
The "people" decide the limits of gun ownership, not the central government or the state governments.
The people exercise their law making power through local government.
That is an interesting take on the second amendment jurisprudence. However, I don't believe it is shared by many people who wear black robes.
Jeremiah

Cincinnati, OH

#3316 Jan 26, 2013
Star chamber prosecution await everyone designated a terrorist by the 2-party system.

Gitmo was invented to keep prying eyes way from its star chamber proceedings.

Every terrorist prosecution related to 9/11 was conducted by a star chamber court.

Star Chamber:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3317 Jan 26, 2013
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>We are, when it'd defined as it should be:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
You have left out the word "militia" from your argument. But that is typical of your style.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3318 Jan 26, 2013
Jeremiah wrote:
The people need a constitutional amendment to bar professional lawyers from public offices that create law.
Lawyers make money through litigation. More laws created by them are more opportunities for lawyers to make money through litigation of laws.
It is an inherent conflict of interest for a professional lawyer to be in a position to make public laws.
Remove the conflict of interest by barring lawyers from holding any public office that creates law: legislator, judges, president.
Sure. We would be much better if tomato farmers wrote and interpreted laws. we should also prohibit auto mechanics from working on cars and surgeons from performing surgery.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#3319 Jan 26, 2013
Adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>abhorrent or not, it does not make the unconstitutional appointment of posts any more constitutional or righteous. What it does is show that we have an administration who is willing to ignore the constitution that bounds and constrains his authority whenever he see it fit to do for any reason he thinks suffices.
Even if you are an Obama supporter, that alone should give you pause. If he thinks it suffices, it could very well be your freedom of speech or freedom from self incrimination, or your right to due process, or as we saw under Bush, the right to habeas corpus could very well be ignored.
The recent Court of Appeals decision is a change from precedent. Regardless of what they held, what President Obama did was in accordance with the state of the law at the time he did it.

But isn't this interesting? The POTUS took action and it was found to be unconstitutional by a court. No one had to shoot anyone or anything. Isn't that neat how that works?

“Ludibrium est onus genio”

Since: Dec 11

Planet Earth

#3320 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why aren't you so absolutist about the phrase "A well regulated militia?"
Heller explains it very well (though a lot longer winded than it needed to be). Think prefatory clause and operative clause.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#3321 Jan 26, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You have left out the word "militia" from your argument. But that is typical of your style.
Click the link, short bus.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Autopsy, toxicology report on Michael Brown 9 min Male 390
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 29 min Male 4,638
Same USA? 1 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 17
Lobbyist pleads guilty to federal corruption ch... (Dec '13) 2 hr Swedenforever 36
Real Estate Developers Propose 6-Story Self-Sto... 3 hr Impeach Obama Now 1
Sheriff to run for mayor of Columbus next year 3 hr Former Columbusite 6
Wilson 's "injuries" 3 hr Black Rhino 37
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 5 hr last turkey day 2,523
happy thanksgiving everyone! 7 hr They cannot kill ... 16
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 7:52 pm PST

Bleacher Report 7:52PM
Breaking Down Bills' Game Plan vs. Browns
NBC Sports 9:17 PM
Week 13 skill-position injury report — Wednesday
NBC Sports 4:58 AM
Browns teammates said Josh Gordon needed to "find himself"
Bleacher Report11:53 AM
Betting Odds, Prediction for Bengals vs. Bucs
Bleacher Report12:01 PM
Betting Odds, Prediction for Browns vs. Bills