PDA

View Full Version : Proposed nulliication in Missouri



Gerarddm
08-30-2013, 01:41 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/opinion/statehouse-swagger-in-the-gun-debate.html?hp


Is there no end to "states rights" stupidity?

I recommend the governor call out the national guard and detain any moron who tries to enforce this nonsense.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 06:26 AM
No bias in that article. :)

Got to say, there is something a bit Orwellian about calling out a primarily Federal organization to suppress a group advocating a states right to resist the Federal Government.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 07:17 AM
"Orwellian', my a$$. States do NOT have the right to nullify federal laws. We fought the bloodiest war in our history to decide that. The last time a state tried to do something similar, president Eisenhower sent in the regular army, the 101st Airborne with helmets and guns in Little Rock escorting students to school past screaming mobs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/101st_Airborne_at_Little_Rock_Central_High.jpg/800px-101st_Airborne_at_Little_Rock_Central_High.jpg

Chris Coose
08-30-2013, 07:19 AM
Vote out every Republican you can, at every election you attend.

The stupidity left over in Maine, even after we crushed their advancement in 2010, is so ugly and predictable we are going to have to sharpen up wood stakes to drive through them for termination.
It'd be OK to have some balance in Maine government but not with these fools.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 09:28 AM
"Orwellian', my a$$. States do NOT have the right to nullify federal laws. We fought the bloodiest war in our history to decide that. The last time a state tried to do something similar, president Eisenhower sent in the regular army, the 101st Airborne with helmets and guns in Little Rock escorting students to school past screaming mobs.

When States start trying to nullify desegregation and anti-slavery laws, I'll be right there beside ya Keith.

Until then, I like a bit of push back against the DC inner beltway elite. ;)

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 09:42 AM
When States start trying to nullify desegregation and anti-slavery laws, I'll be right there beside ya Keith.So you're only OK with states nullifying laws you don't like? Sorry, states don't get to nullify any federal laws, not even the ones you object to.

John Smith
08-30-2013, 09:42 AM
to answer the thread question, there seems to be no limit.

Let us not forget other areas. Two states legalized recreational pot.

It is certainly a complex time.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 09:43 AM
That's a pretty narrow view of history. States are STILL trying to nullify (de facto, if not de jure) federal voting rights laws....

Okay, every legal US citizen also get to vote too. How many more subjects are we going to go through? I was hoping to stay on topic. :D


I get it... it's only the 'DC inner beltway elite' who are in favor of gun safety laws?

Do you REALLY believe that to be the truth?

They're the only ones giving gun owners in many states grief. So that where the nullification process is aimed. ;)

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2013, 09:48 AM
When States start trying to nullify desegregation and anti-slavery laws, I'll be right there beside ya Keith.

Until then, I like a bit of push back against the DC inner beltway elite. ;)

If your military oaths were like mine you swore to uphold the constitution of the United States. ALL OF IT. You don't get to pick and choose. We had some Americans long ago who were of that mind and it damn near destroyed the country. If you long to live in The Federal Republic of Bubbas you may get your wish.

John Smith
08-30-2013, 09:52 AM
As much as I hate all the guns and shooting, I'm not sure I've seen anything "reasonable" proposed.

Even the concept of background checks has the built in assumption that the guy who buys the gun has to be the guy who uses it to shoot someone. The guy who shot of the Newtown school hadn't bought the guns; he used his mom's guns. There seems a consensus to make laws that prevent unstable people from getting guns, but sans getting a doctor to certify one stable, I don't see how this works.

to my mind, again as one who hates all the gun violence, there is no reasonable solution to this problem unless it contains a method for getting the guns already on the streets off the streets. I had suggested the government buy gun collections from the estate, and got dumped on for that idea.

This is an area where I am most definitely pessimistic. I just don't see any gun laws being worth the paper they're written on

BrianW
08-30-2013, 09:52 AM
So you're only OK with states nullifying laws you don't like?

So far.

But as you can see by the listed scenarios, I strongly support federal laws protecting rights. But less supportive of federal laws which restrict rights.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 09:54 AM
Incredible.

So, there's NO popular support for reasonable gun safety regulation.... and it's only the 'DC inner beltway elites' that support such a thing..... ?

Please confirm: do you REALLY believe that?

Show me the quote where I said that Norman.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 09:59 AM
If your military oaths were like mine you swore to uphold the constitution of the United States. ALL OF IT. You don't get to pick and choose. We had some Americans long ago who were of that mind and it damn near destroyed the country. So, be careful what you wish for.

I haven't been in the military in almost a decade.

Besides... modern gun laws aren't in the Constitution. There's is one law in there about firearms. ;)

Gerarddm
08-30-2013, 10:00 AM
States' rights have a pernicious history in this country.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 10:07 AM
Brian, you're trolling, little winky faces notwithstanding. All right, I'll give you a trollish response. State nullification is absolutely impermissible under the constitution, and is effectively treason against the United States. State legislatures do not have authority to interpret the Constitution; that is reserved for the Supreme Court. If a state government defies federal law and enacts laws to block its enforcement, it is effectively in rebellion against the United States, and I would support any necessary measures, including armed force, to bring it back into the union. We've been here before. It did not end well.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 10:09 AM
How ELSE should I interpret that statement?

Exactly as written.

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 10:10 AM
So far.

But as you can see by the listed scenarios, I strongly support federal laws protecting rights. But less supportive of federal laws which restrict rights.

We're not talking about "supporting", which may mean many things. We're talking about nullification, which means only one thing: treason.



Seduced as you have been, my fellow countrymen by the delusional theories and misrepresentation of ambitious, deluded & designing men, I call upon you in the language of truth, and with the feelings of a Father to retrace your steps. As you value liberty and the blessings of peace blot out from the page of your history a record so fatal to their security as this ordinance will become if it be obeyed. Rally again under the banners of the union whose obligations you in common with all your countrymen have, with an appeal to heaven, sworn to support, and which must be indissoluble as long as we are capable of enjoying freedom. Recollect that the first act of resistance to the laws which have been denounced as void by those who abuse your confidence and falsify your hopes is Treason, and subjects you to all the pains and penalties that are provided for the highest offence against your country. Can (you)...consent to become Traitors?

-- Andrew Jackson

(emphasis added)




Sounds remarkably like the present, eh? A pre-civil war case of Blue imploring Red. Could be Obama addressing the Tea Party . . . with about the same chance of getting through the ignorant bigotry.

These jergoffs want to build a following of ignorant jergoffs to lead down a path that leads very quickly to violence. You think it's funny. Of course you can always go down there and take up arms to defend the rights of your fellow Americans to choose which laws they will obey. Wouldn't they do the same for you, patriots all? Ha.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 10:15 AM
Hmmm... so, you're obligated to support the Constitution, but NOT any statute law, either federal or state?

That's in interesting interpretation of a citizen or soldier's obligation to his country.

Better ask Chuck, I don't remember the exact oath anymore. The military oath is his gig, not mine.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 10:19 AM
. . I strongly support federal laws protecting rights. But less supportive of federal laws which restrict rights.No one wants to nullify laws they like.

Gerarddm
08-30-2013, 10:19 AM
Uh, Paladin is dead.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 10:23 AM
We're not talking about "supporting", which may mean many things. We're talking about nullification, which means only one thing: treason.

You quoted my direct response to Keith, where he asks if I'm 'OK' with nullifying certain laws. The use of the word "OK" in his question meant 'support'.

So in my quote you posted, 'support' was indeed what Keith and I were discussing.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 10:24 AM
For reference.


"I, (name) , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

BrianW
08-30-2013, 10:25 AM
Uh, Paladin is dead.

I know. Still makes me sad. What's your point?

Durnik
08-30-2013, 10:42 AM
From the article -


...pending proposal in Missouri (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/missouri-gun-measure-pushes-nullification-boundary.html?src=me&ref=general&pagewanted=all) that would pronounce all federal gun safety laws null and void in the state and allow the arrest of federal agents who try to enforce them.


Dusting off the polemics of nullification, the supposed “law and order” politicians in Jefferson City would rather support an unconstitutional measure than set a law-abiding example of government responsibility.

And there we have as fine an example of 'conservative' law & order as ever - which is to say, not.


also from the article -


Some of the recommended solutions have verged on the laughable.
...
Most pathetically, there are even bulletproof inserts for children’s backpacks.

leaving young children to 'fend for themselves' against insane adults with firearms.. have I said lately how disgusted I am by 'my' country?

peace
bobby

htom
08-30-2013, 10:53 AM
What good are rights if a majority can vote them away?

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 11:10 AM
What good are rights if a majority can vote them away?That's a central question, perhaps the central question in the design of representative government. It's precisely for that reason that we have a Bill of Rights, and a Supreme Court to interpret it and to strike down laws that violate those rights. Now you may disagree with the majority interpretation of the 2nd amendment; that's fine, you can disagree all you want. You can vote for people who will appoint judges who will interpret it differently. You can vote for representatives who will pass laws more to your liking. You can even work for a constitutional amendment that would change it, if you like; we have a procedure for that. It's not easy, but it shouldn't be easy to change the Constitution.

What neither you nor state legislatures can do is ignore those laws you don't agree with. That is anarchy.

Reynard38
08-30-2013, 11:23 AM
And the legislatures of Colorado and Washington should be locked up in federal custody for legalizing substances which are controlled under federal law.

Durnik
08-30-2013, 11:37 AM
What good are rights if a majority can vote them away?

Sure - say, the right to life? or the right to the pursuit of happiness? or the right to liberty.. ie, living free, not under a gun, carried by your neighbor, who might just shoot your or his kids? - all 'voted' away by a minority backing the NRA.. Yeah, like that's _soo_ much better.

SCOTUS has already affirmed that the 2nd amendment does not preclude rational controls & requirements - or would you completely repeal the National Firearms Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act) as well as the Gun Control Act of 1968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968)?

As I've often stated - if hoplophiles want to own firearms, let them step up & propose rational regulations including for starters -

- Registration
- Training
- unloaded & locked up at all times not in use
- use only in approved places

otherwise, stop trying to put up barriers in the way of the majority - who wants to simply, safely live.

It's probably again time for this -

http://www.esoterically.net/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/berge071613.jpg


Missouri, trying to one up Florida _and_ Texas in the pursuit of Excellence in Ignorance & Bigotry.



Ultimately, Keith calls it -


State nullification is absolutely impermissible under the constitution, and is effectively treason against the United States.

...

We've been here before. It did not end well.

&


What neither you nor state legislatures can do is ignore those laws you don't agree with. That is anarchy.

Speaking of which (thanks, Mark), Congress had best wake up (meaning the people had best wake up & vote the right, meaning left ;-), Congress in) and repeal the oh, so horrendously damaging laws against the possession & use of marijuana. Those laws, not the drugs, are killing us.

peace
bobby

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 11:45 AM
And the legislatures of Colorado and Washington should be locked up in federal custody for legalizing substances which are controlled under federal law.No. They have merely repealed state laws. They have not, nor can they prevent enforcement of federal law. The current administration has decided that in some cases it isn't worth the trouble and resources to enforce federal laws against marijuana possession. This IMHO an excellent decision.

Reynard38
08-30-2013, 12:05 PM
So states do not have any obligation to follow or enforce federal law? It's an interesting concept. Federal law says pot is illegal, but it can be legal in a state.
The federal govt. chooses to cut back on border security. A state steps in and is told it cannot enforce federal immigration laws.
No wonder we have so many lawyers in this country!

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 12:17 PM
Sates do not have an obligation to duplicate federal law, as with marijuana possession. If a state repeals laws against marijuana, it's still illegal under federal law. Federal law enforcement is ultimately the responsibility of the feds. Certain areas are reserved for the federal government only, as immigration. Yes, it's complicated. It's a big complicated country, the laws cover a lot of areas, and the distribution of power between the states and the feds is important.

However, the central point is that a state cannot block enforcement of federal law.

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 12:40 PM
What good are rights if a majority can vote them away?

What good is the rule of law, let alone rights, if demagogues can find an audience for a proposal which, if carried through, would require civil war?

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 12:40 PM
And the legislatures of Colorado and Washington should be locked up in federal custody for legalizing substances which are controlled under federal law.

Who told you that?

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 12:43 PM
So states do not have any obligation to follow or enforce federal law? It's an interesting concept.

The most interesting part is that it's a fact, as to enforcement. A further fact, in many instances they prohibited from even making the attempt.

As to "follow", the law is the law. Obey or pay.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 01:49 PM
I hear all this "cannot disobey the Feds" talk and yet Alaska passed a nullification law already.

Are we to expect the Feds to attack us now?

BrianW
08-30-2013, 02:02 PM
*shrugs* Alaska might expect a court challenge, if anyone up there cared to launch one.

Kind of a let down. Keith and Osbourne are citing civil war as a result. Pretty sure I heard anarchy mixed in there too. ;)

Here is what I consider the situation to be... It's a statement. To the Feds, from the States (not all States.) The more States that pass legislation along the same lines, the more (hopefully) the Feds will listen. This is a large and diverse country, and we don't all want the stuff DC is spewing out these days.

leikec
08-30-2013, 02:17 PM
Kind of a let down. Keith and Osbourne are citing civil war as a result. Pretty sure I heard anarchy mixed in there too. ;)

Here is what I consider the situation to be... It's a statement. To the Feds, from the States (not all States.) The more States that pass legislation along the same lines, the more (hopefully) the Feds will listen. This is a large and diverse country, and we don't all want the stuff DC is spewing out these days.

Post #19 spells it out in clear, unambiguous language, Brian. Do you not agree?

Jeff C

BrianW
08-30-2013, 02:23 PM
What spews out of DC these days, comes from your elected representatives. Those 'inside the beltway elites' you have talked about were elected by YOU (the collective 'you'), so your attempt to disassociate them from the population is just plain lame. Don't like what they say inside the beltway? Then don't vote for them... it's really THAT simple.

It's safe to say the country is very disenchanted with Congress. So what they're spewing must not be what most Americans want, no matter what the topic.

It's also safe to say they have created an illusion of being disassociated with normal society.

With that, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement I quoted. Just because we vote for them, doesn't mean we want or like what they do in Congress.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 02:23 PM
. . . and yet Alaska passed a nullification law already. What, you think I'd suggest that Obama should order air strikes on Juneau? :D Alaska's law is a 'statement' indeed - or to be less polite, nothing but hot air, which will be overturned the first time it gets to court. If Alaska officials try to interfere with federal law enforcement people, things will get interesting.

Again, states cannot nullify federal law.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 02:32 PM
What, you think I'd suggest that Obama should order air strikes on Juneau? :D Alaska's law is a 'statement' indeed - or to be less polite, nothing but hot air, which will be overturned the first time it gets to court. If Alaska officials try to interfere with federal law enforcement people, things will get interesting.

Again, states cannot nullify federal law.

Well, as leikec pointed out, there's your post #19...


Brian, you're trolling, little winky faces notwithstanding. All right, I'll give you a trollish response. State nullification is absolutely impermissible under the constitution, and is effectively treason against the United States. State legislatures do not have authority to interpret the Constitution; that is reserved for the Supreme Court. If a state government defies federal law and enacts laws to block its enforcement, it is effectively in rebellion against the United States, and I would support any necessary measures, including armed force, to bring it back into the union. We've been here before. It did not end well.

:D

We're not looking at the next civil war. We're looking at State civil disobedience. Sort of an 'Occupy Wall Street' scene, where the States are the hippies, and the Feds are this guy...

http://troll.me/images/pepper-spray-cop/dont-mind-me-just-watering-my-hippies.jpg

:D

Chris Coose
08-30-2013, 02:54 PM
From the NYT article:
"In a particularly egregious display of insensitivity and arrogance, cocky celebrants of gun rights packed their weapons openly and legally this month on the streets of Newtown, Conn., where a shooter gunned down 20 schoolchildren and six adults last December."
"Last week came news that manufacturers of military battlefield armor have found a new sideline in bullet-resistant whiteboards for classroom use."
"Most pathetically, there are even bulletproof inserts for children’s backpacks."

Gun rights enthusists have much to be tickled about America's response to small child student massacres.

Gerarddm
08-30-2013, 02:55 PM
We're not looking at the next civil war. We're looking at State civil disobedience. Sort of an 'Occupy Wall Street' scene, where the States are the hippies, and the Feds are this guy...



You can reductio ad absurdum all you want, but it won't fly. Typical regressive mind set.

Texas, Alaska, Missouri, wherever: this nullification nonsense is just that. They can flap their lips all they want, but let them just try to actually arrest a Federal officer and the stuff will seriously hit the fan. I would tolerate it no more than Washington tolerated the Whiskey Rebellion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

BrianW
08-30-2013, 03:25 PM
You can reductio ad absurdum all you want, but it won't fly. Typical regressive mind set.

This from the guy with the Black Panther avatar.

You like rebellion, as long as it fits your ideals. :D

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 03:53 PM
I hear all this "cannot disobey the Feds" talk and yet Alaska passed a nullification law already.

Are we to expect the Feds to attack us now?

Yes. Just let one your P brain officials attempt to act on it and see what happens. Since none of them as yet have the B's to do it, you can bet they don't have the B's to tell you about ahead of time, so as the ordinary citizen of Alaska, yes, you are to expect the Feds to attack at any moment.

In the rubble of your temples to ignorance we will erect statues to Jackson in South Carolina and Eisenhower at Little Rock. Alaska belongs to the United States, understand?

htom
08-30-2013, 04:03 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.

Keith Wilson
08-30-2013, 04:07 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.Utter complete flaming nonsense.

One more time: the question of the limits of the power of government is a central question, perhaps the central question in the design of representative democracy. That's why we have a Bill of Rights, and a Supreme Court to interpret it and to strike down laws that violate those rights. Now you may disagree with their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; that's fine, you can disagree all you want. You can vote for people who will appoint judges who will interpret it differently. You can vote for representatives who will pass laws more to your liking. You can even work for a constitutional amendment that would change it, if you like; we have a procedure for that. It's not easy, but it shouldn't be easy to change the Constitution.

What neither you nor state legislatures can do is ignore those laws you don't agree with. That is anarchy.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2013, 04:11 PM
I haven't been in the military in almost a decade.

Besides... modern gun laws aren't in the Constitution. There's is one law in there about firearms. ;)

WHAAAAT?
All federal laws and treaties are part of the US constitution till the courts rule otherwise.
My separation occured 50 years ago next month.

Osborne Russell
08-30-2013, 04:15 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.

Huh?

Paul Pless
08-30-2013, 04:19 PM
what a dumbass thing to argue over

Chris Coose
08-30-2013, 04:27 PM
what a dumbass thing to argue over

Brian's holding up pretty well, considering he entered the ring about 300 lbs. overweight. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for him to tag Phillip or surprise guest MM.

Paul Pless
08-30-2013, 04:28 PM
Brian's holding up pretty well, considering he entered the ring about 300 lbs. overweight. I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for him to tag Phillip or surprise guest MM.phillip has bowed out of all direct engagements as of two weeks ago or so, now its just drivebys from him. . .

htom
08-30-2013, 04:57 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.


Huh?

A right that doesn't protect you from the actions of the government is merely a desire to be protected from the actions of the government.

Rights protect you from the majority. Or used to.

BrianW
08-30-2013, 07:46 PM
what a dumbass thing to argue over

I know, because despite the threats of anarchy and a third world war :) it will probably pass in Missouri too. Then another State, and another, etc. Some peoples heads are simply going to explode around here! :D

SMARTINSEN
08-30-2013, 07:56 PM
^Not unless the legislature can override a veto. Last I checked, Jay Nixon was a Democrat, sorry to disappoint you

BrianW
08-30-2013, 08:00 PM
^Not unless the legislature can override a veto. Last I checked, Jay Nixon was a Democrat, sorry to disappoint you

I'll survive. Heck, I didn't even know Alaska was talking about it, until it was done. ;)

BrianW
08-30-2013, 08:21 PM
Would a conscientious objector who evaded a federally mandated draft be so harshly treated by the new liberal 'pro-government' crowd? I miss the generation that grew up in the 1960's and early '70's that stood up to the feds, even it was hard or included a bit of civil disobedience.

Today's liberal has become an instrument for the man. :)

jsjpd1
08-30-2013, 08:57 PM
What, you think I'd suggest that Obama should order air strikes on Juneau? :D Alaska's law is a 'statement' indeed - or to be less polite, nothing but hot air, which will be overturned the first time it gets to court. If Alaska officials try to interfere with federal law enforcement people, things will get interesting.

Again, states cannot nullify federal law.

If you do, could you at least wait until the legislature is in session?

FWIW-As I recall there was no expectation that local law enforcement would actually put themselves in harms way by trying to enforce this stupid law. Although it is interesting that a state can pass laws contrary to federal law like this or the marijuana thing in Wa and Co and then it just depends of the whim of the feds to determine whether or not it will stand.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2013, 10:01 PM
I know, because despite the threats of anarchy and a third world war :) it will probably pass in Missouri too. Then another State, and another, etc. Some peoples heads are simply going to explode around here! :D

The folks who want to starve the federal government of tax dollars seem to be the same folks who are willing to shovel money into the pockets of very expensive attornies who will then fight a case they know they can't win.
The Republic of Bubbas is here to stay.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-30-2013, 10:19 PM
Would a conscientious objector who evaded a federally mandated draft be so harshly treated by the new liberal 'pro-government' crowd? I miss the generation that grew up in the 1960's and early '70's that stood up to the feds, even it was hard or included a bit of civil disobedience.

Today's liberal has become an instrument for the man. :)

What a waste of band width. No individual's wrong-doing rises to the magnitude of a state's attempt at nullafication of a federal law. WE fought a fairly disasterous war over that proposition. Of course that was before your time so it doesn't count,eh?
In reality being a CO was just a classification on a draft card. I forgot, that was before your time too. It worked like this. If you couldn't sell your CO story to the Selective Service Board you might be in trouble.

Nicholas Carey
08-31-2013, 12:25 AM
A true conscientious objector, back in the draft days, had a legal basis to resist the draft, and due process to achieve that status. He wasn't trying to argue that he was above the law.

Someone who evaded the draft WiTHOUT going through the legal process was breaking the law, and was subject to civil penalties. If it was a case of true civil disobedience, then the objector would be prepared to suffer the consequences of his refusal.

The argument of the "hell no, I won't go" draft dodger was that the war itself was fundamentally immoral and illegal. Immoral under Augustine's Just War theory. Illegal in that. There was no actual and immediate threat to the country itself and it had no constitutionally-mandated declaration of war. Nuremburg principles apply: it is your legal and moral obligation to refuse such an order.


This is a piss-poor analogy, having NOTHING to do with 'nullification'.... you are truly grasping at straws.

Exactly so.

BrianW
08-31-2013, 02:33 AM
The more your folks argue against it, the more it sounds the same.

The draft was the law. If someone didn't like the law, they could either commit civil disobedience, or take the Feds to court.

The law is the law, whether you agree or not. If a bit of civil disobedience is good for individuals, it's good for a group of individuals.

I say it's a good thing, some disagreement with the Feds. No need to make it easy for them when you think their wrong.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 07:29 AM
I haven't been in the military in almost a decade.

Besides... modern gun laws aren't in the Constitution. There's is one law in there about firearms. ;)

True, and that is in the constitution for the self defined reason of maintain a well-trained Militia. For that purpose it allows the citizens to "keep" "arms". Doesn't say a thing about owning any arms.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 07:32 AM
What's the alternative? Anarchy?

We DO have protection of minority rights... but it does NOT mean that the minorities themselves can seize them, all by themselves. There's a process.... it's called the Constitution... remember that?

The concept of the Bill of Rights was to establish a set of rights that are not subject to the majority's will.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 07:35 AM
And the legislatures of Colorado and Washington should be locked up in federal custody for legalizing substances which are controlled under federal law.

That's a point I made earlier. Many of these things are not as clear cut was many like to think.

IN 2000, for example, under my understanding of things, the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds by overruling the Florida State Supreme court in regard to the election.

Obviously, we have not yet achieved that "more perfect" union.

Paul Pless
08-31-2013, 07:49 AM
IN 2000, for example, under my understanding of things, the U.S. Supreme Court overstepped it's bounds by overruling the Florida State Supreme court in regard to the election.

You only feel that way because the ruling went against your desires.


The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law. . .

Keith Wilson
08-31-2013, 08:53 AM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires. A right that doesn't protect you from the actions of the government is merely a desire to be protected from the actions of the government. Rights protect you from the majority. Or used to.Htom, who's normally pretty sensible, is really going on a bender here. Look, we have certain rights, both as a matter of justice and law, and we don't have others. In law, certain things are in the Constitution, others aren't. You have the right to keep and bear arms, but not to keep and arm bears.

Every right, whether in justice or in law, has limits. The right of free speech/press doesn't preclude libel laws, nor copyright laws, nor laws protecting government secrets. Freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice, female genital mutilation, nor the right to keep your daughters illiterate. The right to bear arms does not include keeping nuclear weapons in your garage nor making your own nerve gas. Yes, these are extreme cases. The point is that rights are never absolute; they are all limited.

Rights in the Constitution are not absolute, nor is the language in most cases clear, unambiguous, and obvious to anyone with a brain. The Second Amendment says the following: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So what does this mean in practice? That arms are only covered in the context of a militia, now as obsolete in warfare as a crossbow? What does it tell us about, say, permissible kinds of weapons? Licensing? Sales to those convicted of crimes? Carrying weapons in public? Registers of gun owners? Background checks? Sales at gun shows? Not a damn thing.

When a basic right is included in the Constitution, we have to decide its limits and what the right means in practice. We have mechanisms for this: elected legislatures to make laws, and courts to review the constitutionality of specific laws and set limits on what the legislatures can do. We also have mechanisms to decide who will do those jobs; elections for legislatures and executives, election or appointment procedures for judges. We also have complex processes by which laws are reviewed by the courts, and let alone, modified or set aside. These mechanisms are how our rights are protected, and how the limits on them are decided. It's not perfect, sometimes they get it very wrong, but most of the time it works OK - but the essential point is that the price we pay for the benefits of civilized society is that you or I don't get to decide for ourselves which laws apply to us.

So let's look at the claim that "rights, it seems, are merely desires. A right that doesn't protect you from the actions of the government is merely a desire to be protected from the actions of the government." Htom disagrees with some of the limits on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and thinks that the laws should be somewhat different. I don't think he believes the right is absolute and unlimited and that he should be able to keep nuclear weapons in his basement. He (I think) disagrees with the some of the actions of the legislature and the courts regarding guns and the Second Amendment. That's OK, one has a right to disagree. However the fact that you disagree with the limits that have been set on constitutional rights by our elected representatives does not make them worthless. This is just silly.

You can legitimately do several things based on your disagreement: you can vote for people who will appoint judges who will interpret the constitution differently. You can vote for representatives who will pass laws you approve of. You can even try to change the Constitution (which is really just a law, subject to revision if enough people agree). What you cannot do, nether you nor the Alaska or Missouri state legislature, is ignore those laws you don't agree with. If you do, and if you're too obnoxious about it, armed representatives of the state will come and lock you up. This is as it should be. It is the price we all pay for living in a civilized society with a democratic government.

It's another example of the increasing extremism of the American right that several intelligent and normally fairly reasonable people on the WBF would endorse an anarchist interpretation of the second amendment, apparently without even realizing how extreme a position they are taking.

Keith Wilson
08-31-2013, 09:29 AM
Except for the right to vote, of course . . . Oh, fer chrisskes, don't be silly. Of course the right to vote has limits. We are arguing about where the limits should be. Limits on constitutional rights need strong justifications based on good evidence. When there is absolutely zero evidence of any significant voter fraud which ID laws would prevent, they are an unreasonable restriction on a constitutional right.

Voting rarely kills anyone.


. . . and the threat they represent to the legitimacy of the nation's laws. Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about? Who 'represents a threat to the legitimacy of the nation's laws"? How do they do this? The rhetoric on the right is reminding me more and more of the more insane fringes of the left about 1973.

Keith Wilson
08-31-2013, 09:43 AM
Again, there is absolutely zero evidence of any significant voter fraud which ID laws would prevent. But perhaps it would be better to take discussion of voter ID laws to another thread; it isn't really relevant to the nullification issue.

Glen Longino
08-31-2013, 09:50 AM
Identifying yourself ain't much of a limit. What's silly is claiming that it is.

:DI never tire of watching "The Judge" stand out there pi$$ing into a strong wind and it blowing back onto him, over and over and over again!
He Never learns!:DLMAO

Paul Pless
08-31-2013, 09:53 AM
ID to purchase an airplane ticket?nope. i've even flown without an id, its actually more convenient. i arrived at the airport and told the nearest tsa agent that i had lost my wallet and id, she escorted me to the very front of the checkpoint line (passing dozens of folks waiting in line) where they looked over my ticket then waved me through security.

Gerarddm
08-31-2013, 10:34 AM
Brian, I like a reasoned opposition to stupidity and tyranny. And since the Federal government is the amalgam of the expressed will of the electorate, and since states may not nullify, these states' rights efforts are nothing more than puerile efforts. They are also a clear and present danger if actually attempted to be enforced, and if I was president I would react firmly against them.

The Union, now and forever, even if certain sections of it act like petulant children who deserve a spanking.

wardd
08-31-2013, 10:50 AM
When States start trying to nullify desegregation and anti-slavery laws, I'll be right there beside ya Keith.

Until then, I like a bit of push back against the DC inner beltway elite. ;)

that's what the courts are for

wardd
08-31-2013, 10:56 AM
So far.

But as you can see by the listed scenarios, I strongly support federal laws protecting rights. But less supportive of federal laws which restrict rights.

what about state laws that restrict rights?

Gerarddm
08-31-2013, 11:53 AM
That is why not a single conservative on this forum is willing to answer this question: how many legitimate voters will you deny, to prevent a single instance of voter identification fraud?

Indeed. This is a variant of the question I used to ask about how many people are conservatives willing to sacrifice to uphold the Constitution ( the context was the pernicious Patriot Act and the nanny national security state ). I never got a response.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:20 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.



A right that doesn't protect you from the actions of the government is merely a desire to be protected from the actions of the government.

Rights protect you from the majority. Or used to.

Likely depends who you ask. Many have posted our rights come from God, and government has no part. I disagree with them, but many feel that way.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:24 PM
The more your folks argue against it, the more it sounds the same.

The draft was the law. If someone didn't like the law, they could either commit civil disobedience, or take the Feds to court.

The law is the law, whether you agree or not. If a bit of civil disobedience is good for individuals, it's good for a group of individuals.

I say it's a good thing, some disagreement with the Feds. No need to make it easy for them when you think their wrong.

We also had a constitution that said only congress can declare war. All wars, then, since WWII, have been illegal. Seems we have a history of following the constitution when it is convenient, or interpreting it to fit our needs.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:27 PM
You only feel that way because the ruling went against your desires.

Elections, for the most part, are run by states. Yes, they have to run them in accordance with federal law. Florida in 2000 did that, that the U.S. Supreme court was not expected, by constitutional scholars to get involved. Note, their involvement at this time was a once only deal.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:29 PM
Identifying yourself ain't much of a limit. What's silly is claiming that it is.

You're obviously not familiar with some of the new laws.

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:31 PM
ID for gun purchase?
ID to vote in union elections?
ID to open a savings account?
ID to purchase an airplane ticket?
ID to cross the border BACK home after visiting other countries?

These laws go past ID's. They get rid of early voting and combine districts, making for longer lines. Want to explain how that helps cut down on voter fraud?

John Smith
08-31-2013, 01:34 PM
Talk about pissing into the wind....

From the Washington Post:

Poll: Voter ID laws have support of a majority of Americans
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-concerns-about-voter-fraud-spur-broad-support-for-voter-id-laws/2012/08/11/40db3aba-e2fb-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html

I'd argue this falls into one of those areas where rights are NOT subject to majority approval. The majority of Americans can get the required ID without much trouble. It is the minority who don't have birth certificates, or drivers licenses, and such that have a problem. The obstacle of the ID laws simply makes it impossible for some of these people to vote, and THAT is the purpose of these laws.

htom
08-31-2013, 02:46 PM
Keith ... there are times when we just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Rights end when their exercise has damaged -- not will or might or could damage -- someone else. Not because self-proclaiming victim is are afraid they'll be damaged. Not because they don't want to be damaged. Almost always the end of a right is the violation of someone else's right. Imagined or projected or feared violations don't count -- or didn't used to. Preemptive strikes against rights demonstrate that the government is not serious about the idea of rights, thinking them mere privileges for which licenses may be sold.

wardd
08-31-2013, 06:35 PM
These laws go past ID's. They get rid of early voting and combine districts, making for longer lines. Want to explain how that helps cut down on voter fraud?

if everybody hasn't enough time to vote, less democratic voter fraud

pila
08-31-2013, 07:12 PM
Does anyone here on the Bilge own a boat ?:confused:

Keith Wilson
08-31-2013, 07:25 PM
Does anyone here on the Bilge own a boat ?I do. I've built six, actually, although these days I mainly build furniture.

Osborne Russell
09-01-2013, 09:24 PM
So rights, it seems, are merely desires.



A right that doesn't protect you from the actions of the government is merely a desire to be protected from the actions of the government.

Rights protect you from the majority. Or used to.

I don't know what rights you are talking about. If you mean a right of nullification, there's only two ways it can be asserted: constitutional amendment or civil war.

Osborne Russell
09-01-2013, 09:32 PM
well at least we know where you stand on the issue. Apparently, you believe that nullification of federal law is the appropriate way to insure minority rights.

I don't think that even a right winger like Scalia or Thomas would support you on THAT one...

That's the scary thing. There's no telling what other errors these people labor under. Right of secession, legitimate rape can't cause conception, homosexuality can't be genetic because if it was it would have vanished long ago . . . where to begin? How far back to go? Even if not the whole catalog of Redisms, the subdivision "Plain Errors Of Fact", is lengthy.

Tom Montgomery
09-01-2013, 09:33 PM
Does anyone here on the Bilge own a boat ?:confused:

I did. I no longer do.

But I intend to build Francois Vivier's Beg Meil as my retirement project. I already own the plans. See my avatar.

Gerarddm
09-02-2013, 10:37 AM
#100: so some people would believe. Then again, perhaps they enjoy being public laughingstocks, I don't know.

John Smith
09-02-2013, 12:31 PM
Keith ... there are times when we just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Rights end when their exercise has damaged -- not will or might or could damage -- someone else. Not because self-proclaiming victim is are afraid they'll be damaged. Not because they don't want to be damaged. Almost always the end of a right is the violation of someone else's right. Imagined or projected or feared violations don't count -- or didn't used to. Preemptive strikes against rights demonstrate that the government is not serious about the idea of rights, thinking them mere privileges for which licenses may be sold.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't think I have the right to do something, like drive drunk, that runs a high risk of injuring someone else.

htom
09-02-2013, 01:04 PM
I'm not sure I agree. I don't think I have the right to do something, like drive drunk, that runs a high risk of injuring someone else.

You don't have a right to drive (on the public roads) at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's a privilege for which you are licensed, not a right. (You don't have a right to walk or ride an animal or a bicycle on them, either, drunk or sober.)

Nicholas Carey
09-02-2013, 01:32 PM
You don't have a right to drive (on the public roads) at all. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. It's a privilege for which you are licensed, not a right. (You don't have a right to walk or ride an animal or a bicycle on them, either, drunk or sober.)

Really. Ones's right to travel freely upon the public highways has long been recognized by the Common Law. It has been enshrined in the written law since at least the Magna Carta (q13th century). The Courts of the United States have long recognized freedom to travel as a constitutionally protected right. Section 4 of the Articles of Confederation made it explicit; the drafters of the Constitution thought it such an obvious and fundamental right that it need need not be enumerated. The courts have recognized the roght to freely travel since at least 1823 (QCorfield v. Coryell).

All of which is not to say that it is not subject to reasonable regulation(such as demonstrating minimal competency with a motor vehicle and a minimal understanding of the traffic laws.)

htom
09-02-2013, 05:26 PM
You confuse "freedom to travel" with "right to drive". They're different. (The Articles of Confederation, btw, were ... discarded.)

Cuyahoga Chuck
09-02-2013, 08:39 PM
Does anyone here on the Bilge own a boat ?:confused:

The Woodenboat Forum has catagories for that. Go there!

Osborne Russell
09-02-2013, 10:36 PM
You confuse "freedom to travel" with "right to drive". They're different.

True. You have a right to be a passenger, not the driver.


(The Articles of Confederation, btw, were ... discarded.)

Seems to me he anticipated that point.

In any case, what is this right of nullification? Nullification is an argument about the structure of (American) Federalism, not about an individual right. There is no right to have a state or a federal government, or that they stand in any particular relation to each other.

Nicholas Carey
09-02-2013, 11:50 PM
You confuse "freedom to travel" with "right to drive". They're different. (The Articles of Confederation, btw, were ... discarded.)

Not at all. What I take issue with is your incorrect statement: You don't have a right to walk or ride an animal or a bicycle on [the public roads], either, drunk or sober.

One most decidedly does have that right, a right that's been well-recognized for centuries in Anglo-American jurisprudence (English Common Law being inherited into American jurisprudence following the...unpleasantness...of the 1780s.)

htom
09-03-2013, 12:54 AM
Not at all. What I take issue with is your incorrect statement: You don't have a right to walk or ride an animal or a bicycle on [the public roads], either, drunk or sober.

One most decidedly does have that right, a right that's been well-recognized for centuries in Anglo-American jurisprudence (English Common Law being inherited into American jurisprudence following the...unpleasantness...of the 1780s.)

Long ago, you did. Not now. Maybe in England they still do. I suspect that it's an activity now enshrined in statutes, though. Reflective harnesses, lights at night, maybe diapers.