NationStates

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Times change. We don't need well regulated militias anymore.

SCOTUS is going to get royally fucked up now that the repubs opened the door of holding up a position because they want something else. I wait for the day one of the liberal justice seats open up and the seat remains vacant while they wait for a proper liberal justice. Oh the sweet smell of hypocrisy will be overwhelming.

If you think that then try and repeal that particular amendment. Just trying to pretend it doesn't exist or suddenly means something else is nonsensical.

Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
If you think that then try and repeal that particular amendment. Just trying to pretend it doesn't exist or suddenly means something else is nonsensical.

Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
If you think that then try and repeal that particular amendment. Just trying to pretend it doesn't exist or suddenly means something else is nonsensical.

Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

The Black Forrest wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Interpreting laws according to the reason they were written, is the jurisprudence this country was founded upon.

Times change. We don't need well regulated militias anymore.

It would certainly actually help if people partook in militia duty often. Whether it was disaster response or assisting law enforcement, it would take the load off of the military. Something akin to the South African Commando system would be beneficial.

Not to mention, disregarding that, people still have the right to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Then your not truly pro choice then. And to quote something you said earlier you said your representatives from your city of Olympia dont represent you and you disagree with them completely. They were duly elected by the people overwhelmingly in a free and fair election.

Cekoviu wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

Nope, that has nothing to do with such, as the law was not intended to only cover contemporary weapons. Nor was that the reason it was made. You are strawmanning William Blackstone's jurisprudence, when he specifically talks about how to interpret a law when an unforeseen situation arises.

The reason for the Second Amendment is not "only cover weapon models currently around, but no guns manufactured tomorrow".

Cekoviu wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

The right isn't about specific firearms.

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Then your not truly pro choice then. And to quote something you said earlier you said your representatives from your city of Olympia dont represent you and you disagree with them completely. They were duly elected by the people overwhelmingly in a free and fair election.

"Majority" does not mean "unanimous." My state overwhelmingly went for Mitt Romney in 2012 and that doesn't mean he represents me at all.

Cekoviu wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

That would work if it was worded to apply to arms that existed at the time of the founding, but it's not. "Arms" is a word they knew would mean things beyond muskets and cannons (hell, Jefferson had a rifle that could fire 30 shots) and left it open ended to apply to future weaponry, much like how the 1A doesn't exclusively apply to quill and parchment.

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Then your not truly pro choice then.

Yes I am.

Cekoviu wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Interpreting a law according to the reason it was made is perfectly sensible.

Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

Uh huh. And freedom of speech shouldn't apply to the internet and phones since they didn't exist in the 1770s.

The Parkus Empire wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

Nope, that has nothing to do with such, as the law was not intended to only cover contemporary weapons. Nor was that the reason it was made. You are strawmanning William Blackstone's jurisprudence, when he specifically talks about how to interpret a law when an unforeseen situation arises.

The reason for the Second Amendment is not "only cover weapon models currently around, but no guns manufactured tomorrow".

So it's a living document.

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Then your not truly pro choice then. And to quote something you said earlier you said your representatives from your city of Olympia dont represent you and you disagree with them completely. They were duly elected by the people overwhelmingly in a free and fair election.

He's pro choice but he's also pro Tenth Amendment, which you are not.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:Therefore, we should ban all firearms that didn't exist in the 1770s.

That would work if it was worded to apply to arms that existed at the time of the founding, but it's not. "Arms" is a word they knew would mean things beyond muskets and cannons (hell, Jefferson had a rifle that could fire 30 shots) and left it open ended to apply to future weaponry, much like how the 1A doesn't exclusively apply to quill and parchment.

San Lumen wrote:Then your not truly pro choice then.

Yes I am.

wanting to overturn Roe V Wade and go back to the time of back alley abortion is not being pro choice. And your reps do represent you. They were duly elected by the people of your city. If you dont like them why dont you run against them this year?

San Lumen wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
That would work if it was worded to apply to arms that existed at the time of the founding, but it's not. "Arms" is a word they knew would mean things beyond muskets and cannons (hell, Jefferson had a rifle that could fire 30 shots) and left it open ended to apply to future weaponry, much like how the 1A doesn't exclusively apply to quill and parchment.



Yes I am.

wanting to overturn Roe V Wade and go back to the time of back alley abortion is not being pro choice. And your reps do represent you. They were duly elected by the people of your city. If you dont like them why dont you run against them this year?

You know the same could be said of you and Trump yes? I mean he is a duly elected representative of the United States.

San Lumen wrote:wanting to overturn Roe V Wade and go back to the time of back alley abortion is not being pro choice.

I don't want to go to back alley abortions. If I had my way Roe v Wade would be overturned and an amendment protecting a woman's right to abortion up to a certain point would be added to the Bill of Rights.

San Lumen wrote:And your reps do represent you. They were duly elected by the people of your city. If you dont like them why dont you run against them this year?

Because I'm moving out of the city in a few weeks.

The Black Forrest wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:Nope, that has nothing to do with such, as the law was not intended to only cover contemporary weapons. Nor was that the reason it was made. You are strawmanning William Blackstone's jurisprudence, when he specifically talks about how to interpret a law when an unforeseen situation arises.

The reason for the Second Amendment is not "only cover weapon models currently around, but no guns manufactured tomorrow".

So it's a living document.

Nope. William Blackstone's jurisprudence centers on the reason the law was made, in order to discern the will of the lawmakers. He says by sticking to the reason the law was made, one can usefully apply the will of the lawmakers to circumstances they didn't foresee. To illustrate, he uses an example of an actual law in Italy which prescribed death to the next person who sheds blood in the streets. One day someone needs an emergency operation in the streets, and a doctor operates. His political opponents try to convict under the law against shedding blood in the streets, but the judge rules that the reason for the law was to legislate against violence in the streets, not against emergency medical operation.

Living Document theory posits that the reason the law was made irrelevant, the judge can impose a new reason for it.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Because your interpretation is never nonsensical eh?

I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Question: Do you actively work to kill it? Wish it was struck down?

The Parkus Empire wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
So it's a living document.

Nope. William Blackstone's jurisprudence centers on the reason the law was made, in order to discern the will of the lawmakers. He says by sticking to the reason the law was made, one can usefully apply the will of the lawmakers to circumstances they didn't foresee. To illustrate, he uses an example of an actual law in Italy which prescribed death to the next person who sheds blood in the streets. One day someone needs an emergency operation in the streets, and a doctor operates. His political opponents try to convict under the law against shedding blood in the streets, but the judge rules that the reason for the law was to legislate against violence in the streets, not against emergency medical operation.

Living Document theory posits that the reason the law was made irrelevant, the judge can impose a new reason for it.

*shrugs* It's interesting. It's origianalism on for the things I don't like and yet "interpretive" for the things I do.....

Living Document theory is not that simple as you imply.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Question: Do you actively work to kill it? Wish it was struck down?

Actively? No, there's other things I'd like to see the court do with it's time currently.

I do wish it was struck down, yes. Ideally it would be replaced by an amendment to the Bill of Rights protecting the right to choose.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
I try to remain as consistent and neutral as possible when it comes to my politics and legal views. Much like how I'm pro-choice but believe Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.

Question: Do you actively work to kill it? Wish it was struck down?

He should, since it is a bullshit ruling. Abortion existed when the Constitution was written, it was a misdemeanor. Protecting abortion was not the reason the article against search and seizure was written, and even this was admitted in the ruling, which says abortion is protected in the "penumbra" of the article.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Question: Do you actively work to kill it? Wish it was struck down?

Actively? No, there's other things I'd like to see the court do with it's time currently.

I do wish it was struck down, yes. Ideally it would be replaced by an amendment to the Bill of Rights protecting the right to choose.

That's the problem. It's not that simple. The Const shouldn't be easy to change. If it was supposed to be that way why was it made that way?

Women of the time needed RvW and the religious where not going to allow it.

The Black Forrest wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Actively? No, there's other things I'd like to see the court do with it's time currently.

I do wish it was struck down, yes. Ideally it would be replaced by an amendment to the Bill of Rights protecting the right to choose.

That's the problem. It's not that simple. The Const shouldn't be easy to change. If it was supposed to be that way why was it made that way?

Women of the time needed RvW and the religious where not going to allow it.

Let's be honest, the religious right still wouldn't allow it.

The Black Forrest wrote:*shrugs* It's interesting. It's origianalism on for the things I don't like and yet "interpretive" for the things I do.....

Originalism simply means the guiding principle for interpreting the law is the reason it was written. This is William Blackstone's jurisprudence, it is the jurisprudence our Revolution was couched in, it was the jurisprudence accepted by Hamilton, John Adams and John Jay (all lawyers).

Living Document theory is not that simple as you imply.

Yeah, it is. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall summed up Living Document theory (which he subscribed to) thus: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."

The Parkus Empire wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Question: Do you actively work to kill it? Wish it was struck down?

He should, since it is a bullshit ruling. Abortion existed when the Constitution was written, it was a misdemeanor. Protecting abortion was not the reason the article against search and seizure was written, and even this was admitted in the ruling, which says abortion is protected in the "penumbra" of the article.

Are you really trying to be that disingenuous? It's existed back then as argument? Really?

Are you really suggesting it wasn't an issue to get an abortion in that time?