What kind of shit can law school did you go to? I hope your motions for summary judgement aren't filled with that many spelling errors.

Don, you have a split personality. One minute your preaching neutrality, the next your revealing your left-wing ideology. If there is one thing the conservatives on this site are, it is consistent. You on the other hand can't seem to keep straight what end of the spectrum you are on. At least be consistent, and stop trying to appear to be a moderate in your "What happened" posts.

Your a typical left wing plaintiff side litigator. You have no concept of economics and everything is about social justice to you.

The idea that the II Amendmentexists the right of the people to overthrow its government is a ludicrous myth, perpetuated by the likes of Glenn Beck, who rip a few quotes out of context. There simply is no historical basis for this idea.

The Constitutional Convention was called by Congress in no small part as a result of Shay's Rebellion, in which farmers took arms against the tyrannical government of Massachusetts. The framers, particularly Washington and Madison, vociferously condemned the rebellion, praised Massachusetts for raising a militia to crush it and confiscate the guns of all involved.

There was absolutely no consideration in the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution and the subsequent debates that generated the Bill of Rights to permit a means for the people to overthrow a government by force. The idea is irrational. The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.

On the contrary the clear meaning and impetus behind the Amendment, drafted by Madison, reflected the opposite view. Keep in mind that the Founders, Federalist and Anti-federalist, were adamantly opposed to a standing army, and recognized that protection from inside and outside the boarders, depended on calling on a militia of the free citizenry as Massachusetts had done in 1786. The militia was envisioned as a necessary governmental instrument, not as an adversary or check on the government. As the Constitution itself explains, its purpose is to "suppress insurrections and repel invasions," not to allow for insurrections.

Somehow, it's become a romanticized notion that the Second Amendment protects a right to bear arms against our own government. But there is no historic basis. I think it started in the Timothy McVeigh nut job school of Second Amendment history.

If by "consistent" you mean consistently misinformed, then I concur.

Klydon.

Lol. I hope your employer cuts your ass down to sub 30 hours a week to avoid obama care as I am advising small business owners to do. Serves you right. Let it hit home for you to get the message.

Wow, I have never seen such outright rude and boorish behavior. No wonder everyone else has left this thread, because trying to debate ideas here is like arguing with a tree stump, and perhaps stump would be more open-minded.

As the kids would say, Later, Haters!

Not covering every detail due to personal time considerations is not neglect. That's one of the many false statements and assumptions that you regularly post here. As you can see, I've been a member here since 2006 yet I have only recently broken the 200 post barrier, unlike you who has thousands of posts. I have no desire to invest as much time into posting here as you do because of other things I am involved in. It is not a priority for me. So don't make assumptions about what I know by what I post, and I won't make assumptions about the extent of your arrogance. I assure you I know far more than what I write on this site.

As for the two points you made, those facts are not news to me. But ignoring historical context as you have done is not laughable, it is sad. Notice too, that I have limited my argument to firearm use for self-defense. The language of the Second Amendment is clear that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is separate from the preceding clause which depended on it, and the majority view was that the militia was the "body of the citizenry." The general idea was not that the newly formed United States was going to become a tyranny, but that the people would theoretically fight off a foreign attacker, and that it was better without a standing army. Even with a standing army, it was irrelevant to the accepted belief that there was an inherent right to defend oneself (and family and country). It was seen as a natural right.

My not going into the details of the different ratification committees, the reformational and enlightenment influences on the thoughts of the various Constitutional authors, etc., should be used to create the false assumption that I am unfamiliar with them.

As opposed to left-wingers being consistently wrong.

You're doing it again, DT. You're letting your adversaries here goad you into making ridiculous predictions like this one. She'll never be President. Ever. And I don't care how many people tell me that I'm crazy for saying so. Too many people hate her.

The Republicans who have been in her corner will turn on her at the drop of a hat the minute she announces her candidacy. Her Middle East skeletons will come back to haunt her on both sides (her support of the war in Iraq still sticks in the craw of the Left, and the Benghazi mess will be exploited by the Right). Not to mention that who wants another 70 year old, male or female, back in the White House? And who knows what the hell will be with her health three years from now, let alone eleven years from now? I've read that her health scare last year was much more serious that the press was willing to admit.

And you know what else? I was a Democrat for a good many years and wouldn't vote for her with a gun to my head. It's enough already with the fucking Clintons and their sense of entitlement. I hope that idiot Biden at least goes down swinging. It's DISGRACEFUL that a sitting Vice President should be expected to step aside to accommodate a candidate just because their name is Clinton . Not that he has a chance in hell of beating her in the primary, but he can put enough stink on her to cost her the general election.

President Christie. Get used to the sound of it. And I don't even like the guy.

I would like to see Christie in office. Guy is as sharp as a needle

I read an article in the paper not to long ago with the head line saying Christie was to fat to be president lol.

Which is why he had the lap band surgery. Christie has some good points. His reaction to Sandy was perfection. He showed care and concern for his constituents, he wasn't afraid to let his emotions show and he proved that he could put aside bipartisan blinders for the greater good. However, he needs to learn to watch his temper and keep his big mouth shut.

This most recent pissing contest, and with a reporter no less, proves to me that he's not ready for the Presidency.

If a senator who barely started his first term in office was ready for the presidency, then Christie is way beyond ready.

Could not agree more.

BINGO.

Ridiculous.

Why? Because Christie shows characteristics of leadership and has a backbone? Let's face it. Obama didn't have a clue about what he was getting into

Pizza makes a great case- but underestimates the stupidity of the American people. I will bet anyone on here Hillary "my only accomplishment was sleeping ONCE with Bill" Clinton is our next president.

One point of disagreement: Joe Biden is among the biggest jokes in VP history. His own president has shoved him aside intentionally for the Clintons- and not only because the Clintons still control the party, but because Biden is a third tier attorney like Don.

Dons arguments are the equivalent off "democrats in power nanny nanny nanny you cant do anything about it." And "obama is the best ever, nanny nanny nanny".

Stop with the school yard child's talk. Don't you have a JD for christ's sake? Yeah its probably from a terrible school but nonetheless, a JD. I mean, we all know how highly regarded that degree is these days.

No, because he's a blowhard who doesn't know how to keep his mouth shut. That shows immaturity and impulsiveness, two things that don't work for the office of the Presidency.

As I said, he has some very good traits. He may mature into a better candidate for the job, but I don't think he's ready now. It has nothing to do President Obama vs. Governor Christie.

Kind of like the big O commenting about how Trayvon could have been his son or Syria was a red line. Let's not pretend the current guy is a stoic philosopher.

I don't like Christie or Obama, but think they are wrong on policy grounds, I would rather not choose my presidents on this bullshit People magazine celebrity like analysis of their personalities.

>The guarantee against tyranny lay squarely within ArticlesI-VII.

That really has worked well. I'm sure the NSA is super scared of some some words on the paper and a worthless judiciary. Again, by your standard, the Soviet Union had the most free society ever because it promised so much freedom in its constitution.

I can also pull tons of work from the time of ratification about protection against tyranny by the people through revolution. You know the famous Jefferson quotes, so I guess he was influenced by old timmy as well. When force comes to bear, they were smart enough to realize there is nothing law that can protect the people. "People" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection.

Do you really think it impossible at some future time that the government may go tyrannical? Take the long view of history, every republic to this point ends in tyranny.

Additional point: I like how you cut out my post about your approach being completely indeterminate and without a limiting principle. Why can't Lochner be passed by the same right of privacy, besides of course, your disagreement with the free market system?

Eight of the thirteen original states adopted bills of rights prior to the ratification of the federal constitution. Each had a provision concerning the right of militias and arms. These declarations formed the basis of the Second Amendment, and none of the declarations remotely implied that the right to bear arms is related in any way to overthrowing a tyrannical government. Their stated purpose is just the opposite. It is to defend the state, not overthrow it. They were opposed to standing armies and recognized that the militias, consisting of free and able men, be under the control of civil authority. Pennsylvania and Vermont extended the right to include self-defense, but this language was omitted by the other states and rejected by the Fathers when drafting the Amendment.

It's interesting to note that there was no intent on the part of the founding fathers to include a Bill of Rights as they thought that the state constitutions were adequate. Anti-federalists complained and so the Bill of Rights was drafted. But in the discussions for the second Amendment, various reasons were put forth for the amendment. The frontier states were concerned about attacks from outside the borders by Indians. George Mason of Virginia expressed the southern states' having to defend against possible insurrections from the slaves(Talk about having a reason to oppose a tyrranical government, the slaves had the best cause).
While the declaration of Independence which is not a legal document, correctly identifies an inalienable right to sever the bonds from an oppressive regime, that right is not imbedded in the Second Amendment and has never been interpreted as the reason for the Second Amendment.

I don't know what you mean by my disagreement with the free market system, but the short answer why a case, like Lochner, can't be decided on privacy grounds under the XIV or IX Amendment grounds is that working your job and earning a living is simply not a private activity.

The first, third, fourth, fifth amendments all embody privacy considerations. Privacy rights have been narrowly shaped by caselaw to deal with issues of personal autonomy (as Justice Brandeis recognized in the 19th century- "the right to be left alone"). The privacy rights are personal, rooted in family, procreation, child raising, marriage.

Precedent has resisted extending the rights to commercial activities, like running a bakery in Lochner, an activity that requires hiring people, paying rent, buying from vendors, selling to others, basically an enterprise conducted in the public, openly and for profit.

government actions that impinge a privacy right, like criminalizing homosexuality (Bowers), abortion (Roe) involve a privacy right under the Fourteenth. This is not to say the law automatically fails, but it is subject to strict scrutiny requiring the State to show a compelling state interest to justify the infringement as the first prong of strict scrutiny test.

Contrsry to belief, the Court has been rigid in extending the right of privacy beyond private considerations.

The court holds government intrusion into the regulation of all bakers to a rational basis test, but when the government enters the bedroom to arrest two consenting adults for not having sex the way the government mandates, then, yes, the strictest scrutiny is warrantesd.

As I said above, I disgree with a constitutional right to abortion. But it's not because of privacy as a right. I believe that a law precluding abortion should be subject to strict scrutiny as it impacts private, procreative rights. I feel that the state has a compelling interest in safeguarding the prenatal life.

This is a positive development. Sounds like a libertarian argument. The definition that Casey came up with, that the state may protect its "profound interest" in potential life so long as it does not do so in a way that has the intent or effect of posing an undue burden on the woman's right to terminate pregnancy prior to viability," is based on a misunderstanding of biology since the developing embryo/fetus is not a "potential life," but an actual one, although not capable of living independently. However the viability standard, which is interpreted to mean independence, could extend to infants since they are clearly not able to live independently either, nor for that matter, surgical patients, comatose patients, those with severe mental and developmental disabilities, etc.

Here is the argument from Libertarians For Life:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Hey, stupid, why don't you back up your conclusions with scientific evidence?

Not only does he call me stupid, but he doesn't even spell stupid right! LOL

Since when? What law mandates this? Parents could stop being parents. They aren't murderers for abandoning their children.

Your argument for saying not being viable is the same as a person who needs medical assistance is simply false. The very big difference is that you don't make anyone take care of them. Those who do, do it voluntarily with love, or professionally with pays and benefits. Both can walk out any time they wish.

BTW, I do believe abortion must be protected as a privacy right. All medical matters of a person are subjected to privacy rights.

Until Faithful and Schmo are banned forever I am not posting in this section.

It depends on the point of view. To me, they are no better than murderers. Morality and the sense of compassion for the abandoned children matter very much to me, more than THIS kind of "rights". Freedom is a good concept, but when people are free to do really EVERYTHING WITHOUT EXCEPTION, society will disappear.


So a child is not a person with a right to live no matter what?