|
Post by Rachael on Apr 1, 2008 21:07:54 GMT -5
One thing? About Jericho, and any similar situation that might arise in RL?
You'll note, on Jericho, that having guns didn't actually save the people of Jericho. Had the army not turned against the government in their neck of the woods, the people of Jericho would have slowly been ground down and their guns taken by force.
Which is what (usually) happens in the real world, too. Though our current experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show it's not always that easy (though I maintain that had we not started with Iraq, we would have long since finished with Afghanistan).
In RL, in modern America, the army would have bigger, better guns, and more of them, and they'd come and take yours if they wanted to. It's not the right to bear arms that protected Jericho; it's the intelligence of a small number of army officers who knew something was rotten in Cheyanne.
That said, I'm still not behind abandoning the Second Amendment. I've just never bought the "what if the government turns bad" argument. To protect yourself against the government, you need a small army, at least. Or to convert bits of the actual army.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Apr 2, 2008 10:14:27 GMT -5
Just, FYI: The Second Amendment was never actually ratified as part of the "Bill of Rights" so is an amendment, yes, but not incorporated as part of the Bill of Rights. I guess they never got around to it. Not sure what effect, if any, this will have on the Court's decision, but. . ..
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Apr 2, 2008 12:32:16 GMT -5
Just, FYI: The Second Amendment was never actually ratified as part of the "Bill of Rights" so is an amendment, yes, but not incorporated as part of the Bill of Rights. I guess they never got around to it. Not sure what effect, if any, this will have on the Court's decision, but. . .. Huh. I always thought the first ten amendments had been ratified as a package deal. Thanks, Onj; I've actually learned something today.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Apr 2, 2008 16:04:03 GMT -5
One thing? About Jericho, and any similar situation that might arise in RL? You'll note, on Jericho, that having guns didn't actually save the people of Jericho. Had the army not turned against the government in their neck of the woods, the people of Jericho would have slowly been ground down and their guns taken by force. Which is what (usually) happens in the real world, too. Though our current experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show it's not always that easy (though I maintain that had we not started with Iraq, we would have long since finished with Afghanistan). In RL, in modern America, the army would have bigger, better guns, and more of them, and they'd come and take yours if they wanted to. It's not the right to bear arms that protected Jericho; it's the intelligence of a small number of army officers who knew something was rotten in Cheyanne. That said, I'm still not behind abandoning the Second Amendment. I've just never bought the "what if the government turns bad" argument. To protect yourself against the government, you need a small army, at least. Or to convert bits of the actual army. Yes, RL isn't a place where there are ever gonna be zero guns, or a place where everyone will have and know how to properly use guns . . . or a place where EITHER condition, if it could possibly be achieved, could really keep terrible things - like random violence and killings and takeovers of the less powerful by the more powerful - from happening. Like you, I don't think we should abandon the Second Amendment, in this, our real world. It's like all our other freedoms - tricky to balance "letting people have the freedom to do it," and "trying to keep people from abusing it." Heck - I'm thinking the board is sort of a microcosm here . . . maybe we should have a constitution.
|
|
|
Post by leftylady on Apr 2, 2008 17:12:08 GMT -5
One thing? About Jericho, and any similar situation that might arise in RL? You'll note, on Jericho, that having guns didn't actually save the people of Jericho. Had the army not turned against the government in their neck of the woods, the people of Jericho would have slowly been ground down and their guns taken by force. Which is what (usually) happens in the real world, too. Though our current experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show it's not always that easy (though I maintain that had we not started with Iraq, we would have long since finished with Afghanistan). In RL, in modern America, the army would have bigger, better guns, and more of them, and they'd come and take yours if they wanted to. It's not the right to bear arms that protected Jericho; it's the intelligence of a small number of army officers who knew something was rotten in Cheyanne. That said, I'm still not behind abandoning the Second Amendment. I've just never bought the "what if the government turns bad" argument. To protect yourself against the government, you need a small army, at least. Or to convert bits of the actual army. Yes, RL isn't a place where there are ever gonna be zero guns, or a place where everyone will have and know how to properly use guns . . . or a place where EITHER condition, if it could possibly be achieved, could really keep terrible things - like random violence and killings and takeovers of the less powerful by the more powerful - from happening. Like you, I don't think we should abandon the Second Amendment, in this, our real world. It's like all our other freedoms - tricky to balance "letting people have the freedom to do it," and "trying to keep people from abusing it." Heck - I'm thinking the board is sort of a microcosm here . . . maybe we should have a constitution. And instead of a S'cubiefest, a Constitutional Convention? Onjel could preside over the S'cubie Rules of Order. ;D leftylady
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Apr 2, 2008 17:53:13 GMT -5
Just, FYI: The Second Amendment was never actually ratified as part of the "Bill of Rights" so is an amendment, yes, but not incorporated as part of the Bill of Rights. I guess they never got around to it. Not sure what effect, if any, this will have on the Court's decision, but. . .. Really? Everything I am looking up online about it, says it was ratified 12/15/1791, along with the rest of the BoR. Like Rob, I was pretty sure they were ratified together as a package deal. Here's a link to one of many sites that say so: www.usconstitution.net/const.htmlIf you click on it (the 2nd Amend.), it shows when it was ratified. Can you 'splainy more about what you mean that it wasn't ratified? Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Apr 2, 2008 20:17:50 GMT -5
Just, FYI: The Second Amendment was never actually ratified as part of the "Bill of Rights" so is an amendment, yes, but not incorporated as part of the Bill of Rights. I guess they never got around to it. Not sure what effect, if any, this will have on the Court's decision, but. . .. Really? Everything I am looking up online about it, says it was ratified 12/15/1791, along with the rest of the BoR. Like Rob, I was pretty sure they were ratified together as a package deal. Here's a link to one of many sites that say so: www.usconstitution.net/const.htmlIf you click on it (the 2nd Amend.), it shows when it was ratified. Can you 'splainy more about what you mean that it wasn't ratified? Vlad What I mean is, it wasn't actually incorporated into the Bill of Rights, but is still a Constitutional Amendment. I was engrossed in some documents and didn't frame my comment very well. It's still a valid amendment, just not part of the Bill of Rights. Most amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights, so it could mean that the scrutiny given the law is somewhat lighter. Also, it could affect the decision because the law at issue is in place in an area of the Country that is not a state. The Bill of Rights cannot be superseded by state action and any laws that do so are subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, the rights guaranteed in those amendments cannot be infringed upon by the states unless there is no other way to achieve permissible governmental goal. Other amendments don't have that blanket protection, and state laws that infringe upon the rights given in those amendments are subject to varying levels of scrutiny depending on the type of law and the extent of the scrutiny. My guess is that the level of scrutiny that is going to be used here is the "rational relationship" test, which basically says that there must be a logical relationship between the governmental goal sought and the law enacted to attain that goal. We'll see. Is that any clearer?
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Apr 2, 2008 23:02:30 GMT -5
What I mean is, it wasn't actually incorporated into the Bill of Rights, but is still a Constitutional Amendment. I was engrossed in some documents and didn't frame my comment very well. It's still a valid amendment, just not part of the Bill of Rights. Most amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights, so it could mean that the scrutiny given the law is somewhat lighter. Also, it could affect the decision because the law at issue is in place in an area of the Country that is not a state. The Bill of Rights cannot be superseded by state action and any laws that do so are subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, the rights guaranteed in those amendments cannot be infringed upon by the states unless there is no other way to achieve permissible governmental goal. Other amendments don't have that blanket protection, and state laws that infringe upon the rights given in those amendments are subject to varying levels of scrutiny depending on the type of law and the extent of the scrutiny. My guess is that the level of scrutiny that is going to be used here is the "rational relationship" test, which basically says that there must be a logical relationship between the governmental goal sought and the law enacted to attain that goal. We'll see. Is that any clearer? Well, what you are saying is "clearer," but I am not sure what you are founding the assertion on. I was always taught that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights, and that the 2nd was indeed ratified along with the other nine. They were ratified Dec. 15th, 1791 when finally 3/4 of the then existing states ratified them. Here is a succinct history from the Wikipedia entry on the Bill of Rights (tho it should be known that many other historical references say the same thing): [James] Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).
Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Note: I bolded the sentence in the second quoted paragraph.If I or others are assuming something wrong here, let us know, because this is the first I have ever heard that the 2nd Amendment "Right to bear arms" was not part of what is commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. As far as "special" protections regarding the Bill of Rights, I am also not aware of any specialty, beyond them truly being a cornerstone of our national laws and being the first ten. All amendments are equally part of the constitution in my understanding. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Apr 3, 2008 8:01:53 GMT -5
What I mean is, it wasn't actually incorporated into the Bill of Rights, but is still a Constitutional Amendment. I was engrossed in some documents and didn't frame my comment very well. It's still a valid amendment, just not part of the Bill of Rights. Most amendments are not part of the Bill of Rights, so it could mean that the scrutiny given the law is somewhat lighter. Also, it could affect the decision because the law at issue is in place in an area of the Country that is not a state. The Bill of Rights cannot be superseded by state action and any laws that do so are subject to "strict scrutiny". In other words, the rights guaranteed in those amendments cannot be infringed upon by the states unless there is no other way to achieve permissible governmental goal. Other amendments don't have that blanket protection, and state laws that infringe upon the rights given in those amendments are subject to varying levels of scrutiny depending on the type of law and the extent of the scrutiny. My guess is that the level of scrutiny that is going to be used here is the "rational relationship" test, which basically says that there must be a logical relationship between the governmental goal sought and the law enacted to attain that goal. We'll see. Is that any clearer? Well, what you are saying is "clearer," but I am not sure what you are founding the assertion on. I was always taught that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights, and that the 2nd was indeed ratified along with the other nine. They were ratified Dec. 15th, 1791 when finally 3/4 of the then existing states ratified them. Here is a succinct history from the Wikipedia entry on the Bill of Rights (tho it should be known that many other historical references say the same thing): [James] Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).
Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Note: I bolded the sentence in the second quoted paragraph.If I or others are assuming something wrong here, let us know, because this is the first I have ever heard that the 2nd Amendment "Right to bear arms" was not part of what is commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. As far as "special" protections regarding the Bill of Rights, I am also not aware of any specialty, beyond them truly being a cornerstone of our national laws and being the first ten. All amendments are equally part of the constitution in my understanding. Vlad It's a complicated thing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and was ratified along with the other 9 of the so-called Bill of Rights early on. Later in the process there was action taken to "incorporate" amendments into a unified Bill of Rights and make them, applicable to the States. The 2nd Amendment was never actually incorporated into the unified Bill of Rights, but is still a valid Constitutional provision. Though, we are all taught in school that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, it's not been incorporated as applying to the States by the 14th Amendment. It's an arcane little fact that I mention only as an FYI, but since you asked for an explanation. . .. Lets see if I can clarify this. In the 1920's the Supreme Court had to decide a case in which various amendments to the Constitution were to be applied, or in essence would control, the actions of state governments as they impacted on the rights afforded the citizens by those amendments. This involved the "incorporation" of those amendments under the umbrella of protection offered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and basically meant that state governments couldn't enact laws infringing upon the rights guaranteed the citizens by those incorporated amendments. All but the 2nd Amendment of the "Bill of Rights" were incorporated. Heretofore, only the Federal government was bound by the terms of Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. After this decision, state governments were also bound by the terms of those amendments. At this point, only the Federal government is limited by the 2nd Amendment because it, alone, was not incorporated in to the extended guarantees of the "Bill of Rights" Amendments referred to above. The only potential significance to this is how it affects the approach the Supreme Court takes in analyzing statutes directly impacting on the 2nd Amendment. Amendments cannot be abrogated by the Supreme Court. They can only be interpreted (and there are differences of opinion as to how they are interpreted, whether as a living changing document or strictly construed, which is a whole other topic) in the context of the laws that are being challenged in determining whether those laws violate the provisions of the Constitution or not. What we learn in civics or government classes is basically an overview of the Constitution and not how the Supreme Court analyzes various statutes before pronouncing them constitutional or not. That subject is covered in Constitutional Law I and II in law school. What I'm talking about is the process by which the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of particular statutes, which is much more involved than I actually posted. The Bill of Rights is subject to stricter scrutiny and variance of interpretation than the rest of the Constitution, because of the incorporation into a single body applicable to the States under the 14th Amendment. The issue of gun control in this particular instance is made even more interesting by virtue of the fact that the governing body that enacted the law isn't an actual state of the union, but was enacted by a body that falls under the purview of the Federal Government. How that is going to work, I'm not sure, but my guess is it will receive heightened scrutiny by the Court. In short, until the 1920s we only had a Federal Bill of Rights, which includes the 2nd Amendment, and after that decision, we got a Bill of Rights that is applicable to the States, only not including the 2nd Amendment.I express no opinion regarding the law, as I have not read it nor heard the arguments both in favor of upholding the law and of declaring it unconstitutional.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Apr 3, 2008 9:17:53 GMT -5
Well, what you are saying is "clearer," but I am not sure what you are founding the assertion on. I was always taught that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were the Bill of Rights, and that the 2nd was indeed ratified along with the other nine. They were ratified Dec. 15th, 1791 when finally 3/4 of the then existing states ratified them. Here is a succinct history from the Wikipedia entry on the Bill of Rights (tho it should be known that many other historical references say the same thing): [James] Madison proposed the Bill of Rights while ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, threatened the overall ratification of the new national Constitution. It largely responded to the Constitution's influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that the Constitution should not be ratified because it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).
Two additional articles were proposed to the States; only the final ten articles were ratified quickly and correspond to the First through Tenth Amendments to the Constitution. The first Article, dealing with the number and apportionment of U.S. Representatives, never became part of the Constitution. The second Article, limiting the ability of Congress to increase the salaries of its members, was ratified two centuries later as the 27th Amendment. Note: I bolded the sentence in the second quoted paragraph.If I or others are assuming something wrong here, let us know, because this is the first I have ever heard that the 2nd Amendment "Right to bear arms" was not part of what is commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights. As far as "special" protections regarding the Bill of Rights, I am also not aware of any specialty, beyond them truly being a cornerstone of our national laws and being the first ten. All amendments are equally part of the constitution in my understanding. Vlad It's a complicated thing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and was ratified along with the other 9 of the so-called Bill of Rights early on. Later in the process there was action taken to "incorporate" amendments into a unified Bill of Rights and make them, applicable to the States. The 2nd Amendment was never actually incorporated into the unified Bill of Rights, but is still a valid Constitutional provision. Though, we are all taught in school that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, it's not been incorporated as applying to the States by the 14th Amendment. It's an arcane little fact that I mention only as an FYI, but since you asked for an explanation. . .. Lets see if I can clarify this. In the 1920's the Supreme Court had to decide a case in which various amendments to the Constitution were to be applied, or in essence would control, the actions of state governments as they impacted on the rights afforded the citizens by those amendments. This involved the "incorporation" of those amendments under the umbrella of protection offered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and basically meant that state governments couldn't enact laws infringing upon the rights guaranteed the citizens by those incorporated amendments. All but the 2nd Amendment of the "Bill of Rights" were incorporated. Heretofore, only the Federal government was bound by the terms of Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. After this decision, state governments were also bound by the terms of those amendments. At this point, only the Federal government is limited by the 2nd Amendment because it, alone, was not incorporated in to the extended guarantees of the "Bill of Rights" Amendments referred to above. The only potential significance to this is how it affects the approach the Supreme Court takes in analyzing statutes directly impacting on the 2nd Amendment. Amendments cannot be abrogated by the Supreme Court. They can only be interpreted (and there are differences of opinion as to how they are interpreted, whether as a living changing document or strictly construed, which is a whole other topic) in the context of the laws that are being challenged in determining whether those laws violate the provisions of the Constitution or not. What we learn in civics or government classes is basically an overview of the Constitution and not how the Supreme Court analyzes various statutes before pronouncing them constitutional or not. That subject is covered in Constitutional Law I and II in law school. What I'm talking about is the process by which the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of particular statutes, which is much more involved than I actually posted. The Bill of Rights is subject to stricter scrutiny and variance of interpretation than the rest of the Constitution, because of the incorporation into a single body applicable to the States under the 14th Amendment. The issue of gun control in this particular instance is made even more interesting by virtue of the fact that the governing body that enacted the law isn't an actual state of the union, but was enacted by a body that falls under the purview of the Federal Government. How that is going to work, I'm not sure, but my guess is it will receive heightened scrutiny by the Court. I express no opinion regarding the law, as I have not read it nor heard the arguments both in favor of upholding the law and of declaring it unconstitutional. Do you know why the Supreme Court decided to leave the 2nd amendment out?
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Apr 3, 2008 9:33:20 GMT -5
It's a complicated thing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and was ratified along with the other 9 of the so-called Bill of Rights early on. Later in the process there was action taken to "incorporate" amendments into a unified Bill of Rights and make them, applicable to the States. The 2nd Amendment was never actually incorporated into the unified Bill of Rights, but is still a valid Constitutional provision. Though, we are all taught in school that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, it's not been incorporated as applying to the States by the 14th Amendment. It's an arcane little fact that I mention only as an FYI, but since you asked for an explanation. . .. Lets see if I can clarify this. In the 1920's the Supreme Court had to decide a case in which various amendments to the Constitution were to be applied, or in essence would control, the actions of state governments as they impacted on the rights afforded the citizens by those amendments. This involved the "incorporation" of those amendments under the umbrella of protection offered by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and basically meant that state governments couldn't enact laws infringing upon the rights guaranteed the citizens by those incorporated amendments. All but the 2nd Amendment of the "Bill of Rights" were incorporated. Heretofore, only the Federal government was bound by the terms of Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. After this decision, state governments were also bound by the terms of those amendments. At this point, only the Federal government is limited by the 2nd Amendment because it, alone, was not incorporated in to the extended guarantees of the "Bill of Rights" Amendments referred to above. The only potential significance to this is how it affects the approach the Supreme Court takes in analyzing statutes directly impacting on the 2nd Amendment. Amendments cannot be abrogated by the Supreme Court. They can only be interpreted (and there are differences of opinion as to how they are interpreted, whether as a living changing document or strictly construed, which is a whole other topic) in the context of the laws that are being challenged in determining whether those laws violate the provisions of the Constitution or not. What we learn in civics or government classes is basically an overview of the Constitution and not how the Supreme Court analyzes various statutes before pronouncing them constitutional or not. That subject is covered in Constitutional Law I and II in law school. What I'm talking about is the process by which the Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of particular statutes, which is much more involved than I actually posted. The Bill of Rights is subject to stricter scrutiny and variance of interpretation than the rest of the Constitution, because of the incorporation into a single body applicable to the States under the 14th Amendment. The issue of gun control in this particular instance is made even more interesting by virtue of the fact that the governing body that enacted the law isn't an actual state of the union, but was enacted by a body that falls under the purview of the Federal Government. How that is going to work, I'm not sure, but my guess is it will receive heightened scrutiny by the Court. I express no opinion regarding the law, as I have not read it nor heard the arguments both in favor of upholding the law and of declaring it unconstitutional. Do you know why the Supreme Court decided to leave the 2nd amendment out? I don't actually recall off-hand. I just know that it's so.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Apr 3, 2008 9:56:14 GMT -5
To explain further about what I meant by my 'what if the government turns bad' argument.
I should have actually said that the 'perception' of weakness that some individuals in the government - not the government as a whole - would see if the masses had no means of defense, might actually cause them to seize more power.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't something that is easily defensible if all your freedoms are in the hands of a few who want to decide exactly how good your life, liberty and happiness should be.
It's all in the balance of power. I'm for not giving up even the perception - if that is all it is, and I'm not so sure that it is. Sure, having guns didn't save most of Jericho - but it gave them a fighting chance and allowed the few who could make a difference survive long enough to do so.
|
|