BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of 2nd Ammendment
- Thread starter Hunter
- Start date
Welcome to our community
Be a part of something great, join today!
AEM
Gesundheit
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,331
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
It, and the two dissents, are here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Colonel Ronan
Continue...?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 19,410
- Likes
- 169
- Points
- 63
Thanks, may take me awhile. I'm a bit busy, AEM.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 08:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
Both conservatives and Liberals/Progressives assault the Bill of Rights, but different amendments. Liberals have assaulted the 1st amendment (religious freedoms, free speech) and the 2nd (right to bear arms), among others. Conservatives don't recognize the separation of Church and State (also 1st amendment), and right to privacy among others.
For me, this decision isn't just about the right to own a gun, it's about the Court standing up for the Bill of Rights. Unlike Liberals and Conservatives, I believe in all 10 amendments, and mostly the 10th (look it up).
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
Both conservatives and Liberals/Progressives assault the Bill of Rights, but different amendments. Liberals have assaulted the 1st amendment (religious freedoms, free speech) and the 2nd (right to bear arms), among others. Conservatives don't recognize the separation of Church and State (also 1st amendment), and right to privacy among others.
For me, this decision isn't just about the right to own a gun, it's about the Court standing up for the Bill of Rights. Unlike Liberals and Conservatives, I believe in all 10 amendments, and mostly the 10th (look it up).
44Thrilla
cuatro cuatro
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 14,113
- Likes
- 216
- Points
- 63
How do you guys feel about banning only certain types of guns? For instance, guns that can be easily concealed or automatic assualt weapons. You have to admit it's pretty crazy that people can go out and buy some of the same weapons our military uses in combat.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Main Event @ Jun 26 2008, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Just to clarify. I may be English, but I grew up in the States...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div>
Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not.
</div>
It wasn't Americans who brought Africans over here to become slaves. We inherited a lot of moral issues that were entrenched by about 300 years of European Kings and Corporations trying to loot the place for what they could.
I'm not trying to slam the British, in particular, as it's pretty obvious that the Spanish were bloody mass-murderers on the grandest of scales. Slavery, as we knew it, was designed by the East India Tea Company (a British Company) if you want to read up on it.
The institution of Slavery is something you can't only look at through the lens of today's morality. In those days, black people were (misguidedly, wrongly, etc.) treated as animals. Cattle. Property. The constitution goes a long way to discuss and protect property rights. "Animals" are under Man's domain to rule over, according to the Bible.
However, Slavery was hardly popular throughout the colonies. There were many abolitionists at the time who influenced the constitution, and that document had to be a compromise among all the interests of 13 disparate colonies. What is written in the constitution (from day 1) is that the Slave Trade would be abolished within about 20 years, and to penalize states who allowed Slavery (it wasn't allowed in all 13), 3/5ths representation for the black population.
The 3/5ths provision may be seen two ways. One as devaluing the worth of a human being (which I don't believe is true), and the other as denying those Slave States full representation for their people at the federal level. This latter point is misunderstood by most, IMO.
Our nation is a work in progress. We've made enormous progress over the past 200+ years. To the point a black man, whose family has the blood of slaves, may well be elected president. Over 500,000 men died in our bloodiest war, brought about by Slavery and the lesser representation for the Southern States, and which ended the institution forever here.
I would also raise the point that our legal system is strongly based upon British Common Law. Except for Louisiana, which is a very odd place (for lawyers) because they're law is based upon French Common Law.
I have a much longer rant, but no need to get into that at this point
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It's not about the pursuit of happiness, it's about an enumerated natural human right guaranteed by the Constitution - which is the supreme law of the land. Moreover, it's echoed in the various state constitutions as well.</div>
Can you base the "natural human rights" off of something that allowed slavery? Surely not.
</div>
It wasn't Americans who brought Africans over here to become slaves. We inherited a lot of moral issues that were entrenched by about 300 years of European Kings and Corporations trying to loot the place for what they could.
I'm not trying to slam the British, in particular, as it's pretty obvious that the Spanish were bloody mass-murderers on the grandest of scales. Slavery, as we knew it, was designed by the East India Tea Company (a British Company) if you want to read up on it.
The institution of Slavery is something you can't only look at through the lens of today's morality. In those days, black people were (misguidedly, wrongly, etc.) treated as animals. Cattle. Property. The constitution goes a long way to discuss and protect property rights. "Animals" are under Man's domain to rule over, according to the Bible.
However, Slavery was hardly popular throughout the colonies. There were many abolitionists at the time who influenced the constitution, and that document had to be a compromise among all the interests of 13 disparate colonies. What is written in the constitution (from day 1) is that the Slave Trade would be abolished within about 20 years, and to penalize states who allowed Slavery (it wasn't allowed in all 13), 3/5ths representation for the black population.
The 3/5ths provision may be seen two ways. One as devaluing the worth of a human being (which I don't believe is true), and the other as denying those Slave States full representation for their people at the federal level. This latter point is misunderstood by most, IMO.
Our nation is a work in progress. We've made enormous progress over the past 200+ years. To the point a black man, whose family has the blood of slaves, may well be elected president. Over 500,000 men died in our bloodiest war, brought about by Slavery and the lesser representation for the Southern States, and which ended the institution forever here.
I would also raise the point that our legal system is strongly based upon British Common Law. Except for Louisiana, which is a very odd place (for lawyers) because they're law is based upon French Common Law.
I have a much longer rant, but no need to get into that at this point
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div>
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
Colonel Ronan
Continue...?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 19,410
- Likes
- 169
- Points
- 63
Yes, the English started slavery over here, but we were the first to abolish it also. You cannot blame us for something your "Patriots" decided to keep. I know a lot about American history, but I am lacking in the Civics department. Seems a bit dreary to me.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
I'm not up on English History to the point I know there was actual Slavery within the nation proper. I do know there was indentured servitude, which is similar, but not the same as slavery.
The problem for the founders ultimately was the nature of 13 disparate colonies that they wanted to unite. The biggest one at the time was rural Virginia, while the northeast was quite metropolitan and modern by the day's standards. If the constitution banned slavery, Virginia would not have joined the union (as well as several other states). That they were willing to accept the great compromise of 3/5ths and to abolish the trade (no slaves imported from that point on) is a spectacular achievement.
Jefferson was a Virginian (he wrote the Declaration of Independence, was our first Secy. of State, and 3rd president). He was an abolitionist, but continued to hold slaves until the day he died. He had a common law marriage to a black slave woman and had children with her. He freed his slaves upon his death.
In hindsight, it'd have been better to fight over Slavery at the time and end it, but the European nations still had their sights set on owning the colonies (see war of 1812).
The problem for the founders ultimately was the nature of 13 disparate colonies that they wanted to unite. The biggest one at the time was rural Virginia, while the northeast was quite metropolitan and modern by the day's standards. If the constitution banned slavery, Virginia would not have joined the union (as well as several other states). That they were willing to accept the great compromise of 3/5ths and to abolish the trade (no slaves imported from that point on) is a spectacular achievement.
Jefferson was a Virginian (he wrote the Declaration of Independence, was our first Secy. of State, and 3rd president). He was an abolitionist, but continued to hold slaves until the day he died. He had a common law marriage to a black slave woman and had children with her. He freed his slaves upon his death.
In hindsight, it'd have been better to fight over Slavery at the time and end it, but the European nations still had their sights set on owning the colonies (see war of 1812).
AEM
Gesundheit
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,331
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div>
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
CelticKing
The Green Monster
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 15,334
- Likes
- 35
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do you guys feel about banning only certain types of guns? For instance, guns that can be easily concealed or automatic assualt weapons. You have to admit it's pretty crazy that people can go out and buy some of the same weapons our military uses in combat.</div>
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div>
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do you guys feel about banning only certain types of guns? For instance, guns that can be easily concealed or automatic assualt weapons. You have to admit it's pretty crazy that people can go out and buy some of the same weapons our military uses in combat.</div>
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
</div>
Heh
You got the 2nd sentence wrong. Because there's ghettos, people in the ghettos have more a need of guns for protection (and other purposes).
Get rid of the ghettos and what do you get?
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
</div>
Heh
You got the 2nd sentence wrong. Because there's ghettos, people in the ghettos have more a need of guns for protection (and other purposes).
Get rid of the ghettos and what do you get?
AEM
Gesundheit
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,331
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div>
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
</div>
It should have been clear, a limited government with power in certain areas - as spelled out in the text itself. The murkiness isn't derived from the text, but from gross misapplication of clauses like the Necessary and Proper clause.
You've read Federalist 84, so I guess we don't need to rehash Mason versus Hamilton here.
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
</div>
It should have been clear, a limited government with power in certain areas - as spelled out in the text itself. The murkiness isn't derived from the text, but from gross misapplication of clauses like the Necessary and Proper clause.
You've read Federalist 84, so I guess we don't need to rehash Mason versus Hamilton here.
AEM
Gesundheit
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,331
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thrilla @ Jun 26 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do you guys feel about banning only certain types of guns? For instance, guns that can be easily concealed or automatic assualt weapons. You have to admit it's pretty crazy that people can go out and buy some of the same weapons our military uses in combat.</div>
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
</div>
Heh
You got the 2nd sentence wrong. Because there's ghettos, people in the ghettos have more a need of guns for protection (and other purposes).
Get rid of the ghettos and what do you get?
</div>
Finland?
[Speaking of high per capita gun ownership...]
Its not only crazy its absurd. In every state here in the US, you have murders happening every single night, because there are so many damn guns in the streets. There is not a ghetto anywhere in the US without guns or automatic guns. Thats a direct result of people being able to bear arms.
By the way I'm a republican, will vote for McCain, but when it comes to guns, I'm against them to the end.
</div>
Heh
You got the 2nd sentence wrong. Because there's ghettos, people in the ghettos have more a need of guns for protection (and other purposes).
Get rid of the ghettos and what do you get?
</div>
Finland?
[Speaking of high per capita gun ownership...]
CelticKing
The Green Monster
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2005
- Messages
- 15,334
- Likes
- 35
- Points
- 48
You guys know pretty well what I'm saying though.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 10:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The 10th is redundant.</div>
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
</div>
It should have been clear, a limited government with power in certain areas - as spelled out in the text itself. The murkiness isn't derived from the text, but from gross misapplication of clauses like the Necessary and Proper clause.
You've read Federalist 84, so I guess we don't need to rehash Mason versus Hamilton here.
</div>
It's not clear. Regardless of the Federalist Papers (which were a debate in their own right), the founders agonized over many of the words and wording of the constitution proper, and it is what it is.
The government is to provide for the General Welfare of the people. It states this in the preamble, as if it's really important (it is
).
What laws congress may pass are assumed to be for that purpose, and without the Bill of Rights, I don't see how they're restricted in just about any way in what they could legislate.
In fact, this case is the perfect example. "Congress" passed a law banning guns in D.C. and the Bill of Rights trumped it, and the Court rightly figured that out.
The 10th isn't redundant, it makes it painfully and explicitly clear what the rights of the Feds are.
</div>
But that's why it is - or should be - redundant. The Constitution consists of enumerated powers, period. So any power not mentioned therein remained with the states or the people respectively. That follows from the fact that it's a limited delegation of powers to the federal government. The 10th Amendment spells it out explicitly, but remains nonetheless redundant for all that.
</div>
It's the exclamation point at the end of that sentence
The constitution on its own isn't so clear. It enumerates powers, but the actual governing part is deliberately left murky. Congress has the right to pass laws. The President can veto. But what are the nature of laws that are allowed to be passed? The Bill of Rights was absolutely needed to put in place the guideline that those laws cannot infringe upon Natural Rights.
</div>
It should have been clear, a limited government with power in certain areas - as spelled out in the text itself. The murkiness isn't derived from the text, but from gross misapplication of clauses like the Necessary and Proper clause.
You've read Federalist 84, so I guess we don't need to rehash Mason versus Hamilton here.
</div>
It's not clear. Regardless of the Federalist Papers (which were a debate in their own right), the founders agonized over many of the words and wording of the constitution proper, and it is what it is.
The government is to provide for the General Welfare of the people. It states this in the preamble, as if it's really important (it is
What laws congress may pass are assumed to be for that purpose, and without the Bill of Rights, I don't see how they're restricted in just about any way in what they could legislate.
In fact, this case is the perfect example. "Congress" passed a law banning guns in D.C. and the Bill of Rights trumped it, and the Court rightly figured that out.
Real
Dumb and Dumbest
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,858
- Likes
- 4
- Points
- 38
This is a triumph for all those residents of Washington D.C. that want to buy a handgun to protect themselves.
Beyond Capitol Hill and Georgetown, Washington D.C. is one of the worst cities in America. The criminals have the guns but the citizens who have to deal with these insane people can't. So this is a great ruling.
Beyond Capitol Hill and Georgetown, Washington D.C. is one of the worst cities in America. The criminals have the guns but the citizens who have to deal with these insane people can't. So this is a great ruling.
Chutney
MON-STRAWRRR!!1!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,944
- Likes
- 46
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
o.iatlhawksfan
ROFLMFAO!!!!
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 3,907
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 38
This is good to know, all these wacko in this world, you gotta protect yourself with something.
AEM
Gesundheit
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,331
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 36
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>
It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>
It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?
Chutney
MON-STRAWRRR!!1!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,944
- Likes
- 46
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 01:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Jun 26 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>We're supposed to be a country that's Liberal (in the classical sense). The government doesn't grant rights to the people, but rather the people grant rights to the government to minimally govern. It's actually a major twist on European societies (of the time) who had Kings who were granted the power to rule by God; here we have God-given Rights and the power flows upward from the masses.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>
It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?
</div>
Yea, I think I am. I don't know much about Justice Stevens (is he in that link you posted?), but I read an article by Waluchow once that I really agreed with.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with owning a gun or a hundred guns. People collect them like baseball cards or classic cars. It's their basic and fundamental right to pursue Happiness as they see fit. You cannot (in the USA) deprive _everyone_ of this simple pursuit of happiness because a very few abuse the right.
While I favor the right to bear arms, I do think the penalty for using them in crimes should be as severe as possible, without being cruel and/or unusual punishment. I also believe the government must and can show an overwhelming necessity to deprive people of rights if they're going to do so. Govt. does have an overwhelming interest in controlling nuclear arms, so the right to bear arms does not extend to nukes, for example.</div>
I agree with this pretty much. The only thing I don't understand is why, in America, the right to bear arms has come to represent that pursuit of happiness. It's like, people express their views about government and individual freedoms by vigorously defending their right to carry firearms. I'm really commenting on whether or not its right, I just find it odd. Seems like you could find a more sensible issue to center your views around.
</div>
You're touching upon one of Hamilton's arguments against adding a Bill of Rights in the first place. His point was twofold. First, that the rights are natural ones, and cannot be affected by the government to begin with, and second, that people would hone in on some of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and act as if other - equally fundamental - rights are less important.
</div>
Yea, I'm not as big a fan of the "set in stone" constitution either.
</div>
It depends how you look at it. It was set up so that it would be hard to change things, so that temporary majorities (or super-majorities) in Congress couldn't simply change things all willy-nilly. It's really a collection of general principles, to which laws must conform. As such, it protects a lot more than a more expansive document could, much less an easily-altered one.
</div>
I understand the idea of making the constitution difficult to alter, but at the same time, it ties it down to a certain historical perspective. I have problems with binding a society to a set of principles that may not be all that relevant anymore. The "right to bear arms" issue is a perfect example of that. The legitimate debate over government and personal freedoms is being expressed through something from the American Revolution. I prefer a constitution that, while not constantly in flux, more closely follows the common law approach. Set down general universal principles and allow them to be interpretable as society progresses and changes.
btw, this thread is really interesting. I find debates like this way more interesting than most political events/issues.
</div>
It sounds like you're at least somewhat partial to the 'Living Constitution' school of thought. Do you generally find yourself in agreement with Justice Stevens?
</div>
Yea, I think I am. I don't know much about Justice Stevens (is he in that link you posted?), but I read an article by Waluchow once that I really agreed with.
Real
Dumb and Dumbest
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,858
- Likes
- 4
- Points
- 38
<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value=" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> &"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src=" width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value=""></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/djc_k0oIc10&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> &" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>
Antonin Scalia is a rockstar.
Antonin Scalia is a rockstar.
bbwchingy0007
BBW Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2004
- Messages
- 2,500
- Likes
- 5
- Points
- 38
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chingy0007 @ Jun 26 2008, 10:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Jun 26 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing @ Jun 26 2008, 09:42 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No one should have rights to bear arms, but now its too late to pull the ruling out, with so many damn guns in the streets. (millions)
The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>
What the fuck?
I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.
I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...
EXCELLENT idea.
</div>
Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime.
</div>
Brilliant!
Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime.
(Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough).
What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
</div>
If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make?
The founders made that rule so that the people could protect themselves from the threat of the English (UK) and things like that, and they had no idea where the world was going to be hundreds of years later.</div>
What the fuck?
I was going to go on a long winded post against this, but then I saw that you are from Massachusetts.
I will say this: you outlaw guns, it doesn't get rid of guns. It just assures you that the law abiding citizens will get rid of theirs, while those who kill, steal, etc with guns, keep theirs...
EXCELLENT idea.
</div>
Outlaw guns and then have life sentences without parole or anything for anyone caught with a gun after an amnesty. Anyone left with a gun obviously is intending to use it to break the law, else they would hand it in, so punish them before they commit the crime.
</div>
Brilliant!
Now we just gotta hope we catch them before they commit a crime.
(Crosses fingers AND toes - that should be enough).
What I don't understand is how Liberals (and not in the classical sense that DaBullz used, but in the modern day sense in American politics) bemoan the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, saying its a violation of of our Constitutional Rights....then under the same breath, want to ban guns.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
</div>
If they are going to commit crimes anyway, what difference will it make?
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
If we're supposed to have a "living document" as constitution, why didn't they write "this document should be liberally interpreted, ignored when convenient, and otherwise pointed to only when you care about the harm govt. is doing" in it?
Chutney
MON-STRAWRRR!!1!
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,944
- Likes
- 46
- Points
- 48
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we're supposed to have a "living document" as constitution, why didn't they write "this document should be liberally interpreted, ignored when convenient, and otherwise pointed to only when you care about the harm govt. is doing" in it?</div>
You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more.
You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more.
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,114
- Likes
- 10,945
- Points
- 113
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Jun 26 2008, 12:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jun 26 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If we're supposed to have a "living document" as constitution, why didn't they write "this document should be liberally interpreted, ignored when convenient, and otherwise pointed to only when you care about the harm govt. is doing" in it?</div>
You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more.
</div>
I'm making an amusing observation here, not directing anything at you. Well, I'm easily amused...
The constitution was written by lawyers. It closely resembles a corporate structure in many ways. The constitution itself would be the by-laws.
If doctors wrote it, it probably would be something of a living document.
You're not supposed to have one. The US constitution wasn't designed that way. I was just saying that I prefer that model more.
</div>
I'm making an amusing observation here, not directing anything at you. Well, I'm easily amused...
The constitution was written by lawyers. It closely resembles a corporate structure in many ways. The constitution itself would be the by-laws.
If doctors wrote it, it probably would be something of a living document.
Similar threads
