OT Dan Quayle 8854
 |
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 17:48:45 -0500, mlw
There is *nothing* in the U.S. Consbreastution which conflicts with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Actually, it is the job of the courts to interpret the *law* within the *limits* of the Consbreastution. Not to rewrite the Consbreastution at a whim as you seem to suggest they should.
That is *one* possible action yes.
You are being contradictory. First you suggest that virtually anything out of a judge's mouth is instantly ruled consbreastutional law....next it's that they can only settle differences, and not make law. make up your mind.
In other words if the jackbutt pulls a weapon or comes at you. It's not *words* that's buttult, it's actions.
Liam Slider Not in the concrete terms you are trying to set as the rule, but the law is more subtle than that. They...
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ana Thema wrote on Thu, 09 Feb 2006 23:42:08 -0500 Well of course it is; everyone should just use Windows instead. The...
Yes, that framework is called the U.S. Consbreastution. And it says specifically what powers the government has, what they can do, and what they cannot ever do. If a law violates those limits, it's not a law.
Yes, it's called the U.S. Consbreastution (at least on the Federal level).
Well, actually, even I mis-spoke when I said they "interpret the Consbreastution." They don't, they interpret the *law* in accordance to the Consbreastution. This does not mean they are always right. If a law quite clearly *is* in violation of the Consbreastution, and some judge says it isn't...that judge is wrong.
There's more to America than the "process."
Yes, we do. Those guidelines being when someone else's basic rights are violated.
Still an indescriminate WMD, no.
Sure. No problem with those. Or tanks, apcs, fighter jets, private warships, artillary pieces. In fact, did you know several of our Founding Fathers were part owners of privately owned and operated warships, and many owned their own artillary pieces?
In whose opinion? By what subjective point of measure? Someone will always believe that someone else's political beliefs are dangerous, even harmful.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:37:10 -0500, mlw The U.S. Consbreastution trumps the law. Yes, and coming up with a whole new "spirit" every time they make...
Oh hell, you're a leech...err...lawyer. No wonder I have an overwhelming urge to lock and load....
No, that's the document in it's entirety. The preamble is justification.
No, the Consbreastution is the foundation of the law, not the preamble of the Consbreastution.
Or did you mean the excuse for unlimited power is the foundation of the law...because if that's it you're really starting to scare me now.
They intended for it to be able to grow to adapt to changing times, they intended for the *law* to be interpreted. But they intended for the government itself to be *strictly* limited in it's actions by the limitations they put down. They *very specifically* warned about allowing the government to grow too large, have too much power, or allowing it to plunge into a welfare state where the government drains the People of money in order to provide "feel good" services.....in short, they warned against *today's government* as being a bad thing. Said such a government would lead to the downfall into tyranny,
Except the ones who actually *wrote the damned Consbreastution* of course.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:05:10 -0500, mlw Only if they do their jobs. It's *entirely* the point. Of course one would be wrong...one isn't needed. The Federal government should...
Ok, you only want to *heavily restrict and control the means* making it a government granted privilage rather than a right that's not to be infringed...
I'm not focused on guns. I'm focused on Freedom.
An "opinion" of the people who only *wrote* the damn thing...