Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The Fourteenth, Ken.
John
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
If trump is elected, say so long to public lands, and the budget for National Parks will be slashed.
exactly, the parks Republican/Socialist Nixon funded
national parks are, by definition, socialist
#Sieg-HeilTrump2016
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Bump Now THAT'S funny!
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
The park service has been underfunded for decades and regardless it's not the pres allocating their funding.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
The park service has been underfunded for decades and regardless it's not the pres allocating their funding.
true, but my point is that trump doesn't give a damn about the environment.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
However, the key thing is the definition of "person". It did not include women.
This was ratified in 1868.
However, women did not gain the right to vote until 1919, when the 19th amendment passed.
So the 14th did NOT confer equal rights to women under the meanings of the time. Should it be interpreted that way, today? Would they still retain the vote if the 19th were repealed, today? Should we revert to the 1800's definition of "person"??
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"This highlights the stupidity of 'original intent' doctrine, in one partial sentence."
Indeed.
"...If anything, the meaning has evolved,"
So wait.....the interpretation of the Constitution has changed since it was created?
I thought originalists were adamant that it is a static document, intended to be interpreted exactly as it was written (according to the subjective whim of the reader, anyway)?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Ready for Donald -> 12,816
When Trump Wins ... -> 6,977
Melville put up a lot of words too, but he got paid for each of them.
Roped up and ready to bang.
|
|
Alan Rubin
climber
Amherst,MA.
|
|
John, I think Ken M. and Dingus point out one of the biggest flaws in the original intent approach (though far from the only one). The original intent of the Framers--even if such a collective thing could be determined (they didn't agree amongst themselves about what they meant)---as the primary guiding principle in Constitutional interpretation becomes meaningless in considering a document that has had so many amendments, some of them negating many of the crucial original provisions. Yet amending the document to clarify each detail would be effectively impossible--that is much of the genius in Chief Justice Marshall's initial direction of the Supreme Court.
Specifically on your comments on the Second Amendment. For what it is worth, way back when I did my third year paper in law school (the law school version of a thesis in my school)on the Second Amendment and in that paper took a position looking at the Revolutionary origins of the Amendment to support a broad right of individuals to own and carry firearms. (The paper was a meant to assist in the defense of some Black Panthers charged with firearms offenses.) Many of my arguments back in 1970 were similar to those made by Scalia in Heller (not that I am taking 'credit' for his arguments).However, while I still generally agree with that analysis, my current view is more nuanced. I don't think either grammatically or following rules of legal interpretation, you can ignore the first phase ("well-regulated militia") of the Amendment. While I don't agree that since we no longer effectively have a militia (though we do--the National Guard)we can just ignore the Amendment, I do believe that since that is the 'foundational' clause of the Amendment, the second part must be considered within the 'militia' context. So is the right to bear arms collective or individual or maybe part of both--really the fundamental question and the original circumstances are only part of the answer? But in either approach we can't ignore--as the NRA, etc want us to do--that the right to bear arms is to be within a "well-regulated" context---one that can and should include limitations on the types of weapons individuals can possess. Surely under the 'original' context the only weapons we should be allowed to own should be flintlocks.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Alan, you describe yet another conundrum with "meaning".
The word "arms".
Did the founders mean a variety of weapons that did not exist, and could never have been guessed at? How could they have?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Thanks, Alan, for your reply. I'm not sure I agree that the amendments render original intent useless, though. Supporters of original intent analysis use it to determine the meaning of the operative words of the Constitution. Thus, to the extent that an amendment removed (e.g. Amendment XXI) or re-wrote (e.g. Amendment XVI) a provision, we construe the amended version.
Original intent matters when the words in the operative document have changed their meaning. Otherwise, we can have popular usage change meanings that legislation or the Constitution never intended to change.
As to the Seocnd Amendment, I see a difference between your analysis, trying to determine the meaning of the entire amendment, vs. that that Ginsburg recently stated, repealing the amendment sub silencio.
I have this rejoinder to those who criticize original intent: If a document is to serve as a contract between a government and its people, what other interprative analysis protects the parties to that contract better? This has particular relevance because so much of the Constitution limits what the majority can do to the minority.
Ken, if we consider American history, the battles of Lexington and Concord came about because the Redcoats intended to sieze the arms of the militia, who were irregulars and owned those arms individually. As to what constitutes "arms," at that time it must have meant all weapons of war, since private parties owned the same weapons the regular army did.
[As an aside, I'm almost certain Paul Revere would not have warned that "The British are Coming," since he and the militia members considered themselves British. It was probably more like "The Redcoats are coming!" or "The regulars are coming!"]
Also, I was thinking of property ownership in my answer to your previous question. Obviously in considering voting rights, we have in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, Amendments XV, XIX, XXIII, XXIV and XXVI. See? If you want to change the contract, you amend the Constitution. You don't need to do so by judicial fiat, unless you want to eviscerate a protection of the political minority to which the country agreed in adopting and amending the Constitution.
Finally, to those who say political threads are useless, I'm getting to argue with two people I've never met personally, but who I've known about as climbers for decades (in Al's case), and who I've always admired. Pretty cool, if you ask me.
John
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
I have this rejoinder to those who criticize original intent: If a document is to serve as a contract between a government and its people, what other interprative analysis protects the parties to that contract better?
You have a novel interpretation of the Constitution: that it is a contract.
I gather that you are LITERALLY interpreting it as such, although nowhere in the founding documents is that word found used in this meaning.
As for "interpretive analysis", you may have heard of the Supreme Court.
All contracts are based upon some assumptions in law. When those laws change, the contract changes, as well, or is invalid.
A contract owning a slave was constitutionally valid and legal at the beginning of the country. Those contracts were invalidated by a change in the underlying interpretation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"all men are created equal"
Yes and this has never evolved and holds true eternally.
Every living entity is part parcel of God.
But stupid Americans base this meaning on bodily consciousness.
This is their defect as usual.
Modern people are stoopid and their stupid leaders all just bring more and more dystopia to the world .....
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Specifically on your comments on the Second Amendment. For what it is worth, way back when I did my third year paper in law school (the law school version of a thesis in my school)on the Second Amendment and in that paper took a position looking at the Revolutionary origins of the Amendment to support a broad right of individuals to own and carry firearms. (The paper was a meant to assist in the defense of some Black Panthers charged with firearms offenses.) Many of my arguments back in 1970 were similar to those made by Scalia in Heller (not that I am taking 'credit' for his arguments).However, while I still generally agree with that analysis, my current view is more nuanced. I don't think either grammatically or following rules of legal interpretation, you can ignore the first phase ("well-regulated militia") of the Amendment. While I don't agree that since we no longer effectively have a militia (though we do--the National Guard)we can just ignore the Amendment, I do believe that since that is the 'foundational' clause of the Amendment, the second part must be considered within the 'militia' context. So is the right to bear arms collective or individual or maybe part of both--really the fundamental question and the original circumstances are only part of the answer? But in either approach we can't ignore--as the NRA, etc want us to do--that the right to bear arms is to be within a "well-regulated" context---one that can and should include limitations on the types of weapons individuals can possess. Surely under the 'original' context the only weapons we should be allowed to own should be flintlocks.
There are numerous flaws in the above, but the last sentence is nonsense.
The 2nd Amendment uses the words "arms," not "arms that have currently been invented" or anything to that effect.
The time of the Bill of Rights was a time of rapid technological change: the weapons at the time of the Bill of Rights didn't grow on trees--they had been invented and were in a state of continual refinement and improvement. There is no concept of originalism that pretends that the founders were complete morons that didn't understand the concept of invention.
While the above is so obvious is scarcely needs to be proved, it can be proved with reference to the Constitution itself, which states that
The Congress shall have Power To . . .promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
This is the Constitutional underpinning of copyright and patent laws.
Patents were granted on firearms in the 1700s.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Interpreting the 2nd amendment is painfully difficult, in part, because the language itself is painfully obtuse. Certainly the Framers could have done a much better job of explaining whether or not the "militia" language was meant to limit the ownership of arms to an individual's participation in a militia. I happen to think it does--or else there would be no need for that language at all and "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" would suffice.
In any event, I agree with the following comment by JE:
If you want to change the contract, you amend the Constitution. You don't need to do so by judicial fiat, unless you want to eviscerate a protection of the political minority to which the country agreed in adopting and amending the Constitution.
And that is why I think Heller was a horrible decision. The "militia" language was previously understood to modify the limit to bear arms by individuals--and this was changed by activist court fiat, rather than going back and amending the Constitution.
Curt
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Better yet (thanks Herman)
"the right to bear arms, whether or not in existence now and without regard to whether or not they can be envisioned or contemplated, shall absolutely not be infringed"
-
My kingdom for a horse!
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Hey, TGT...what do you think about Trump?
Is he going to get your vote?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Cosmiccragsman
Trad climber
AKA Dwain, from Apple Valley, Ca. and Vegas!
Oct 27, 2011 - 09:14pm PT
Got my Map.
I was working with Richard Harrison today washing windows and He said There are a few good climbs close by.
I can't wait til next week!!!!
So I was 100% truthful about everything I said
except that Cosmic didn't own his own company, which I admitted to being wrong about
He is a grunt window washer in Las Vegas that worked WITH Richard Harrison
So it turns out that Cosmic and Locker were the liars all along
I guess my slap down of those fools worked well
not as much static
Losers
I laugh everyday at the stupidity that tries to call me a liar
Any questions?
NEXT
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
Whatever. I'm still sending my shoes to Locker :-)
Curt
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!