According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Alim Nassor
The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn,
R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that
found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental
right."
Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second
Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold
as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered:
"Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of
one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/saunders/#ixzz0LVoyoDQg
WOW as far as I am concerned the right to self defense is THE single
most important right of all. Protecting your very life trumps anything
else.
It is so blindingly obvious that I can hardly believe a judicial
appointee could say such a thing. Is there ANYONE in RGP who thinks
they don't have the right to defend themselves. This is not about
guns. I know, the discussion was in the context of gun ownership, but
her comments are clear. You do not have the right to defend
yourself. She did not say "with a gun"
This woman is an idiot.
Schmedley
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6bebc57b-5ff9-40c3...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
prosecutions. According to your post, the question is whether it is a
"constitutional " right which is entirely different.
IOW the state maintains its monopoly on violence, and makes a small
exception in the cases of self defense which it alone can define. And while
this exception is well grounded in common law from who knows when, there is
nothing constitutional or fundamental about it.
Will in New Haven
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The Common Law IS fundamental and predates the Constitution. So it is
fundamental but not constitutional.
--
Will in New Haven
da pickle
My analysis of her comment ... and only from the snip provided ... I did not
see the entire exchange ... would be that she is saying that there is no
"explicit" "right of self defense" "enumerated" in the bill of rights ... or
any other clause of the Constitution.
She apparently was questioned about the "right of privacy" that has been
found in the Constitution ... I think she was saying that the "right" of
"self defense" would fall into that sort of penumbra of the Constitution. I
do not think she meant that it did not exist.
I could easily be wrong, but I do believe that the sort of parsing that goes
on is pretty silly.
Sotomayer does not appear to be stupid or a total communist ... she is left
leaning and she may or may not be a good justice of the supreme court ...
but she is going to be a justice of the supreme court. Folks are often
surprised at what happens to individuals when they become as powerful as one
of the nine. I hope she is a moderate leftist, but I have no doubt that she
will displease all extremists no matter their political persuasion.
I think I heard her say she understood the "individual right" that was
recently at issue with regard to the Second Amendment.
If she had said many of the things that she has said at these hearing and
she had been presented by President Bush ... she would not have received any
Democrat votes. No one believes that what she says is what and who she is
or who she might be ... no one knows ... even she is unlikely able to
imagine what it will be like to hold such power. It is a monumental
responsibility.
I wish her the best ... I hope she grows in the job.
FellKnight
She's pretty clearly correct.
Self-defence *is* a fundamental right. The right to bear arms is not.
The right to bear arms, however, *is* a right enshired in the
Constitution. There is, however, nothing in the Constitution (to my
knowledge, anyway), about the right to self defence (probably because it
is a fundamental right).
Fell
--
"Don't underestimate Fell. He's a smart kid."
- Paul Popinjay, RGP, Nov 15, 2008
______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Schmedley
"FellKnight" <jordand...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l1c6j6x...@recgroups.com...
Which, of course, opens the question of what meaning does "fundamental
right" have in US law? Driving first year law students crazy for
generations.
Robert Ladd
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6bebc57b-5ff9-40c3...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
I watched that exchange on MSNBC yesterday. What was happening was that
Coburn was trying to pin her down on the 2nd Amendment and she was having
none of it. It was painful watching her try to make up a scenario that
didn't even apply to what he was asking to get out of answering the
question.
He actually stepped back from the gun issue and asked her directly if you
were being attacked, is there is a fundamental right to defend yourself?
Nothing about guns, simply, do you have the fundamental right to defend
yourself when being attacked, and she skirted the question.
Now I don't know if it was some kind of trap Coburn was trying to set on an
upcoming case, or whether she was avoiding answering because she knew of
some upcoming case, but it was strange watching her hem and haw when most
people would just answer "Yes, if some knucklehead attacks me I can defend
myself".
Robert Ladd
Schmedley
"Robert Ladd" <fromt...@email.com> wrote in message
news:h3q7ce$80q$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Which points out, when you get out on the edge, how silly the arguments
about judicial activism are. On the one side, people try to read out of the
constitution the actual language. On the other, Coburn and his ilk whine
and cry about discovered or imputed rights until they discover one.
Regarding a self defense case, I know of none. All statutory law protects
the right of self defense. So why would there be a challenge? If some
knucklehead filed a habeus petition because the trial defense did not go far
enough to protect his "right," I can't think of one justice that would back
the claim.
Incredibly, Coburn actually got in a reasonable point. Did he make like
Ricky Ricardo while doing it?
Alim Nassor
>
While it does not appear in the Constitution it does appear as an
"unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independence, which was
adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress of July 6th, 1776.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
This passage has been cited in several Supreme Court rulings, so it
has it's place in law.
garycarson
law you had a duty to retreat if attacked. The eastern seaboard states
adopted that idea even though it was based on the idea that only the state
had the right to kill.
That changed with the western expansion of the US. In the western states
a right to self defense developed, but it wasn't constitutional, it was a
development by those pesky activist courts. In Texas it went so far as to
develop a concept of "fighting words".
The right to self defense today is all over the map -- in some states you
can kill to defend property, in others you can't kill to defend your life
unless retreat is just impossible. It's all statutory rights, not
constitutional.
I think Sotomeyer is going to make a terrible justice, but not because she
doesn't know the law.
On Jul 17 2009 6:50 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
______________________________________________________________________�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Schmedley
On Jul 17, 8:37 am, "Schmedley" <schmege...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
While it does not appear in the Constitution it does appear as an
"unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independence, which was
adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress of July 6th, 1776.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
This passage has been cited in several Supreme Court rulings, so it
has it's place in law.
The interesting thing is that this discussion is way better that three days
of Senate confirmation hearings.
mo_charles
> I think Sotomeyer is going to make a terrible justice, but not because she
> doesn't know the law.
why?
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
intang...@yahoo.com
> Sotomayor answered:
> "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of
> one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."
If you ever get around to reading the Constitution, you will find that
there is, indeed, NO Constitutional right to self-defense.
(So which is it? Do you wingnuts want "strict constructionists" or
do you want judges who just make shit up?)
intang...@yahoo.com
>
> While it does not appear in the Constitution it does appear as an
> "unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independence, which was
> adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress of July 6th, 1776.
The Declaration of Independence is not a document of law. It's a
strongly-worded letter to the king.
garycarson
> <snip>
>
> > I think Sotomeyer is going to make a terrible justice, but not because she
> > doesn't know the law.
>
> why?
>
Because she's a strong advocate for government power -- she's an
authoritarian. Her catholic upbringing colors her views much more than
her ethnic background or legal education. She believes in the power of
the state and the power of the state functionary and in strong deference
to authority.
________________________________________________________________________�
Will in New Haven
It doesn't take a strict constructionist to find a right of sefl-
defense in the common law. However, it is not a constitutional issue
and would be extremely unlikely to come up before the Supremes.
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> There is not a constitutional right to self defense. In English common
> law you had a duty to retreat if attacked. The eastern seaboard states
> adopted that idea even though it was based on the idea that only the state
> had the right to kill.
And your duty to retreat ended when you could no longer retreat. And
then you had a right to defend yourself. It has often been held in
U.S. courts that your duty to retreat ended when you were in your own
house.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com- Hide quoted text -
intang...@yahoo.com
> it is not a constitutional issue
> and would be extremely unlikely to come up before the Supremes.
Indeed, but that won't stop Republicans from using their time in the
spotlight to badger her about it because they can.
mo_charles
> > and would be extremely unlikely to come up before the Supremes.
>
> Indeed, but that won't stop Republicans from using their time in the
> spotlight to badger her about it because they can.
what spotlight? i watch the news all day long for work and have barely
heard a peep about her confirmation hearings. roberts and alito were LIVE
on every network for the entirety of their testimony.
mo_charles
_______________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
> On Jul 17, 1:37�pm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> > There is not a constitutional right to self defense. �In English common
> > law you had a duty to retreat if attacked. �The eastern seaboard states
> > adopted that idea even though it was based on the idea that only the state
> > had the right to kill. �
>
> And your duty to retreat ended when you could no longer retreat.
Not in historical common law. It is a current common law view, but it
wasn't always so. At one time only the King had the right to kill and
there were no circumstances that made exception to that.
>And
> then you had a right to defend yourself. It has often been held in
> U.S. courts that your duty to retreat ended when you were in your own
> house.
Because of state statutes, not because of federal or constitutional
issues. In some states, I think Oklahoma is one, you have no duty to
retreat at all. In others, such as Texas, you have no duty to retreat
within your own house but only at night. Other exceptions to the duty to
retreat exceptions (such as the Texas "fighting words" exception) are
entirely judge created and have no statutory or constitutional basis.
> - Show quoted text -
________________________________________________________________________�
da pickle
> Because of state statutes, not because of federal or constitutional
> issues.
[There is such a thing as "federal common law" ... but a discussion of such
is beyond this group. It is not the same thing as "common law" as might be
discussed in various state courts.]
There are some historic decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
that address the self-defense issue.
[From the introduction of an article that addresses some of the history:]
"From 1893 to 1896, the United States Supreme Court handed down a series of
decisions involving self-defense and the carrying and use of firearms for
self- defense. These cases laid the foundation for a 1921 opinion, authored
by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that became the most important armed self-
defense case in American legal history, upholding and extending the right to
armed self-defense."
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm
[The cases discussed.]
A. Gourko v. United States: Carrying a Gun is an Innocent Act
B. Starr v. United States: Even Criminals May Use Deadly Force in Resisting
Attacks by Law Enforcement Officers
C. Thompson v. United States: There is Nothing Wrong with Carrying a Rifle
for Protection
D. Beard v. United States: There is No Duty to Retreat Before Using Deadly
Force
E. Allison v. United States: Self-Defense is for Juries to Evaluate, Not for
Judges to Exclude
F. Wallace v. United States: Prior Threats by an Attacker are Relevant to a
Defendant's Use of Deadly Force
G. Alberty v. United States: No Duty to Retreat when Confronting a Spouse's
Paramour
H. Acers v. United States: Judge Parker is Affirmed
I. Allen v. United States: Self-Defense Decisions Can be Made in a Hurry;
There is a Duty to Retreat on Public Property
J. Rowe v. United States: Withdrawal from a Fight Revives the Right to
Self-Defense
K. Brown v. United States: Detached Reflection Cannot be Demanded in the
Presence of an Uplifted Knife
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Jul 17 2009 2:17 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 1:37 pm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > There is not a constitutional right to self defense. In English common
> > > law you had a duty to retreat if attacked. The eastern seaboard states
> > > adopted that idea even though it was based on the idea that only the state
> > > had the right to kill.
>
> > And your duty to retreat ended when you could no longer retreat.
>
> Not in historical common law. It is a current common law view, but it
> wasn't always so. At one time only the King had the right to kill and
> there were no circumstances that made exception to that.
Killing someone under circumstances of self-defense would mean civil
liability but not criminal charges. That may not have been codified
but it did happen and not in one or two isolated instances. This was
in a time when _accidental death_ even without allegation of
negligence, could lead to a lawsuit. So I think the fact that self-
defense usually made killing a civil matter means that _somewhere_ in
the common law judges thought there was a self-defense exception
>
> >And
> > then you had a right to defend yourself. It has often been held in
> > U.S. courts that your duty to retreat ended when you were in your own
> > house.
>
> Because of state statutes, not because of federal or constitutional
> issues. In some states, I think Oklahoma is one, you have no duty to
> retreat at all. In others, such as Texas, you have no duty to retreat
> within your own house but only at night. Other exceptions to the duty to
> retreat exceptions (such as the Texas "fighting words" exception) are
> entirely judge created and have no statutory or constitutional basis.
The duty to retreat has to end somewhere. I'm pretty sure you can run
but you can't hide.
intang...@yahoo.com
>
> what spotlight? i watch the news all day long for work and have barely
> heard a peep about her confirmation hearings. roberts and alito were LIVE
> on every network for the entirety of their testimony.
>
> mo_charles
...as they are this time.
Of course when a Republican committee member tells her point blank she
WILL be confirmed (barring a "meltdown"), any drama they can gin up
is a transparent play for the cameras.
~M~
news:nu87j6x...@recgroups.com...
> Not in historical common law. It is a current common law view, but it
> wasn't always so. At one time only the King had the right to kill and
> there were no circumstances that made exception to that.
We got rid of that whole king thing a long time ago, along with other
antiquated legal notions, including the idea that you do not have the right
to self-defense.
--
"I get off on pictures of beautiful women unintentionally exposing their
nipples."
- William Coleman (ramshiva) 4/26/2009
mo_charles
> > heard a peep about her confirmation hearings. �roberts and alito were LIVE
> > on every network for the entirety of their testimony.
>
cnbc didn't show a minute of soto's testimony; they showed the entirety
of both roberts and alito. care to ask "this ain't the obama bashing
network" zucker why?
> Of course when a Republican committee member tells her point blank she
> WILL be confirmed (barring a "meltdown"), any drama they can gin up
> is a transparent play for the cameras.
what's transparent is your defense of her candidacy. did you ever - EVEN
for a SECOND - question her qualifications and abilities?
mo_charles
________________________________________________________________________�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
garycarson
>
> We got rid of that whole king thing a long time ago, along with other
> antiquated legal notions, including the idea that you do not have the right
> to self-defense.
As recently as 2005 you have the duty to retreat in NYS.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0039.htm
The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave your castle,
but you do have the duty to retreat into your castle and close the
drawbridge behind you.
Read it.
garycarson
> > > what spotlight? �i watch the news all day long for work and have barely
> > > heard a peep about her confirmation hearings. �roberts and alito were
LIVE
> > > on every network for the entirety of their testimony.
> >
> > ....as they are this time.
>
> cnbc didn't show a minute of soto's testimony; they showed the entirety
> of both roberts and alito. care to ask "this ain't the obama bashing
> network" zucker why?
Because Roberts was very articulate and only served to make Bush look good
for picking him.
She's not very articulate and makes Obama look bad.
It's not really a double standard. In both cases it was a protect the
image of the president decision.
>
> > Of course when a Republican committee member tells her point blank she
> > WILL be confirmed (barring a "meltdown"), any drama they can gin up
> > is a transparent play for the cameras.
>
> what's transparent is your defense of her candidacy. did you ever - EVEN
> for a SECOND - question her qualifications and abilities?
>
> mo_charles
______________________________________________________________________�
Alim Nassor
Not all rights are conferred in the Constitution, The Declaration of
Independence also asserts that we have the the unalienable right to
life.
Alim Nassor
Alim Nassor
> On Jul 17, 2:09 pm, "intangible...@yahoo.com"
>
>
> > do you want judges who just make shit up?)
I'd like to know the same thing Coburn wondered. If you leftwing nuts
can find a right to privacy that exists nowhere in the Constitution,
how can she not see the clearly written, "right of the people to keep
and bear arms"
Alim Nassor
.
>
> (So which is it? Do you wingnuts want "strict constructionists" or
> do you want judges who just make shit up?)
So I guess you are saying since most leftwing nuts abhor strict
constructionists you prefer judges "who just make shit up" as you say.
Omaha8_Beach
wrote:
Gary, do you think involuntary manslaughter would have been a more
appropriate conviction against the defendant? The 16 years for
manslaughter seems too harsh to me.
Ken
garycarson
No, it hasn't. Maybe as evidence of original intent in using it as a
guide to interpretation of the constitution but not as law.
You really don't know what you're talking about.
------�
garycarson
> On Jul 17, 8:52�pm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 17 2009 8:37 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > We got rid of that whole king thing a long time ago, along with other
> > > antiquated legal notions, including the idea that you do not have the
right
> > > to self-defense.
> >
> > As recently as 2005 you have the duty to retreat in NYS.
> >
> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0039.htm
> >
> > The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave your castle,
> > but you do have the duty to retreat into your castle and close the
> > drawbridge behind you.
> >
> > Read it.
> >
> Gary, do you think involuntary manslaughter would have been a more
> appropriate conviction against the defendant? The 16 years for
> manslaughter seems too harsh to me.
>
The law has nothing at all to do with what's reasonable or appropriate.
I probably would not have found the guy guilty had I been on the jury.
But, we're talking about law here and I grew up in Texas where people get
killed 'cause they deserved killing all the time.
Alim Nassor
wrote:
You use the word "maybe" but tell me I don't know what I am talking
about.
The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme
Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on
an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The
freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
The phrase was also used in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[4],
which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest
of the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment as guaranteeing,
among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness.
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)[5],
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his
concurring opinion to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's
opinion, wrote:
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document,
is the right of men to pursue their happiness,
garycarson
All judges just make shit up.
That's what legal training is all about. Legal reasoning always starts
with the conclusion then builds an argument that leads to where you want
to end up. Law school is 3 years of teaching you how to do that. It
destroys the minds of young people.
_____________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
> On Jul 17, 10:41�ｿｽpm, "garycarson" <garycar...@alumni.northwestern.edu>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 17 2009 10:01 PM, Alim Nassor wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 17, 2:12�ｿｽpm, "intangible...@yahoo.com"
> > > <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 17, 10:28�ｿｽam, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > While it does not appear in the Constitution it does appear as an
> > > > > "unalienable right" in the Declaration of Independence, which was
> > > > > adopted by the 2nd Continental Congress of July 6th, 1776.
> >
> > > > The Declaration of Independence is not a document of law. �ｿｽIt's a
> > > > strongly-worded letter to the king.
> >
> > > That has been cited in Supreme Court cases as law.
> >
> > No, it hasn't. �ｿｽMaybe as evidence of original intent in using it as a
> > guide to interpretation of the constitution but not as law.
> >
> > You really don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> You use the word "maybe" but tell me I don't know what I am talking
> about.
>
> The phrase "pursuit of happiness" appeared in the 1967 U.S. Supreme
> Court case, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)[3], which focused on
> an anti-miscegenation statute. Chief Justice Warren wrote: "The
> freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal
> rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
>
> The phrase was also used in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)[4],
> which is seen as the seminal case interpreting the "liberty" interest
> of the Due Process clause of the fourteenth amendment as guaranteeing,
> among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness.
>
> Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)[5],
> U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his
> concurring opinion to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's
> opinion, wrote:
>
> Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document,
> is the right of men to pursue their happiness,
So?
That's not law. Law does not give us inalienable rights. That's the
whole point of unenumerated rights. The Declaration doesn't give them to
us either. Those are human rights,rights we have simply because we're
human.
There's no constitutional right to self protection and no automatic right
to self protection. There is a right to life, but it's not given by a
document and it doesn't follow from that right that you don't have a duty
to retreat. It's not exactly an absolute right either. i.e., death
penalty.
--------�ｿｽ
~M~
> On Jul 17 2009 8:37 PM, ~M~ wrote:
>
>>
>> We got rid of that whole king thing a long time ago, along with other
>> antiquated legal notions, including the idea that you do not have the
>> right
>> to self-defense.
>
> As recently as 2005 you have the duty to retreat in NYS.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0039.htm
>
> The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave your castle,
> but you do have the duty to retreat into your castle and close the
> drawbridge behind you.
>
> Read it.
I did.
I do not see how this conflicts with my statement. You do have the right to
defend yourself, and with deadly force. The court simply found that you
could not exercise deadly force when you had better options.
~M~
news:24cf56aa-5ba1-438f...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 3:50 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If you ever get around to reading the Constitution, you will find that
> there is, indeed, NO Constitutional right to self-defense.
Nor are there Constitutional rights to anything else.
The Constitution does not give or grant any rights.
--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than
Christianity has made them good."
- H.L. Mencken
garycarson
> <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:24cf56aa-5ba1-438f...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 3:50 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If you ever get around to reading the Constitution, you will find that
> > there is, indeed, NO Constitutional right to self-defense.
>
> Nor are there Constitutional rights to anything else.
> The Constitution does not give or grant any rights.
>
>
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
____________________________________________________________________�
Travel A
The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
There is, however, an explicit restriction against the government
preventing you from owning guns.
One thing about Sotomayor that strikes me in a positive way: she
volunteers the information that she's a product of Affirmative Action;
she says that her grades, etc., weren't high enough to qualfy in
entering law school.
With her outspoken public gaffes as "we make policy here, ha ha ha"
(meaning, "from the bench") to her reputation for giving-out projectile,
violent reprimands in court, there seems to be a certain innate honesty
(posssibly Tourette Syndrome) about her. Although an admirable quality
in a general sense, unfortunately, a true, proud believing socialst
isn't really a constructive improvement over a deceitful socialist.
.................
I think that using "the king" as a reference for understanding "original
intent" can be useful.
After all, the restrictions against the government, made by the founding
fathers, had to be with the king and the king's laws in mind.
If the debate is about whether the original intent of the Constitution
meant to carry over the laws of England, there's a good chance the
founding fathers actually wanted to do the opposite. If self-defense was
against the law in 18th century England, give full weight to the idea
that the 2nd amendment intended to remedy that problem.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
> She really did come across as a dumb fuck.
>
> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
So Congress could pass a law banning it tomorrow.
It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5CdnZ_pL_s5-_zX...@giganews.com...
> <intang...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:24cf56aa-5ba1-438f...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 17, 3:50 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> If you ever get around to reading the Constitution, you will find that
>> there is, indeed, NO Constitutional right to self-defense.
>
> Nor are there Constitutional rights to anything else.
> The Constitution does not give or grant any rights.
>
But since you're actually spouting off Randian nonsense, rather than actual
fact, go ahead and claim that rights come from rational thought or whatever
bullshit you want.
Rights come from governments. Governments established by people, generally,
but without a government to preserve and protect that right, it isn't real.
A right to property is useless if anyone stronger than you can take it away
anyway.
Jerry Sturdivant
"garycarson"
> The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave
> your castle, but you do have the duty to retreat into your
> castle and close the drawbridge behind you.
Would pushing the garage-door closer be the modern-day application?
Three months ago Steve, my Barista, walked out into his garage, the garage
door was open, and found a young, punk kid 'Gangsta' looking for something
to steal. Steve hardly got to ask what the hell he was doing when the
droopy-pants kid draws and fires 5-shots. Fortunately the idiot kid did the
stupid, "hold the gun sideways so you look cool," (even though the ejected
shells come right back in your face and the shots go off to the right). Cops
told Steve he could have shot the kid down.
Steve now carries open, awaiting his Concealed Weapons Permit.
Jerry (wanting hunting permits for gangstas) 'n Vegas
- When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction.
~M~
> When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
> rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
> rights.
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect belief
that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that the
Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that the
Constitution does not enumerate.
--
"Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such;
because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form
of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered;
and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a
Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done
before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic
Government, being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin
garycarson
> "garycarson"
>
>
> > The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave
> > your castle, but you do have the duty to retreat into your
> > castle and close the drawbridge behind you.
>
> Would pushing the garage-door closer be the modern-day application?
>
> Three months ago Steve, my Barista, walked out into his garage, the garage
> door was open, and found a young, punk kid 'Gangsta' looking for something
> to steal. Steve hardly got to ask what the hell he was doing when the
> droopy-pants kid draws and fires 5-shots. Fortunately the idiot kid did the
> stupid, "hold the gun sideways so you look cool," (even though the ejected
> shells come right back in your face and the shots go off to the right). Cops
> told Steve he could have shot the kid down.
>
Taking legal advice from cops is generally not a good idea.
____________________________________________________________________�
garycarson
> "garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
> news:tm78j6x...@recgroups.com...
>
> > When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
> > rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
> > rights.
>
> When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect belief
> that the Constitution creates or grants rights.
Only if you're a fucking idiot. Or a right wing activist protesting
activist judges.
da pickle
>
>> "Travel A" wrote
>>
>> She really did come across as a dumb fuck.
>>
>> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
>> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
>> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
>> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
>
> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so.
> So Congress could pass a law banning it tomorrow.
> It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
You guys should really leave any discussion about the constitution and
"rights" alone.
(You might remember the 9th amendment in your misunderstandings of
"rights.")
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
[Beldin, please do not keep calling people names; it annoys the pig.]
da pickle
> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
>
> There is, however, an explicit restriction against the government
> preventing you from owning guns.
I simple way of explaining the constitution is that it is a directive to the
federal government stating "specifically" what it can do ... not what it
should not do ... if the "power" is not specific (or cannot be "found" in
the shadows of the words of the document) then the federal government
"lacks" the power it is attempting to exercise.
The bill of "rights" (of the "people" ... not the federal government) is an
extra added attraction just in case someone in the future (like so many
here) want to do something that is just too far out. Of course, all that
"original intent" has been pretty much watered down over the years. And it
is certainly correct to say we occasionally have a "constitutional crisis"
when one branch gets out of line as far as the other two are concerned. It
is certainly correct to say that the SCt has indeed "made law" and continues
to do so in a very general way ... but those are the exceptions, not the
rules. The president can seize the steel mills because he has "might" ...
not because he has the "right." The SCt can say it has the power to
determine what is or what is not "constitutional" but that power is not an
enumerated power of the court in the constitution ... it only keeps that
power because the other two branches have allow it to keep that power.
The joining of "power" in all the branches and tentacles of the federal
government in a single group of "like minded" occupants is exactly what the
founding fathers hoped to prevent. It does not matter what the "like
minded" group is like minded about ... it is the concentration of power that
is the danger. This country was founded by a minority of people that were
way beyond civil disobedience. And what they created had a thought that
there might indeed be a time in the future when "the people" might need all
the individual and personal power that they could keep so they could turn
the rascals out again.
~M~
news:bJj8m.131$MA3...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> That'd be false.
> But since you're actually spouting off Randian nonsense, rather than
> actual fact, go ahead and claim that rights come from rational thought or
> whatever bullshit you want.
Fuck off, moron.
> Rights come from governments.
No they don't. They tend to be violated by governments.
> Governments established by people, generally, but without a government to
> preserve and protect that right, it isn't real. A right to property is
> useless if anyone stronger than you can take it away anyway.
Hence the right to self-defense.
--
"I am firmly of the opinion that if I make it to 50 in good health, I'll
make it to 100. And if I make it to 100, technology will get me to 200."
-Beldin the Sorcerer, 10/28/2007
da pickle
>> > The above found that you don't have a retreat duty to leave
>> > your castle, but you do have the duty to retreat into your
>> > castle and close the drawbridge behind you.
>>
>> Would pushing the garage-door closer be the modern-day application?
>>
>> Three months ago Steve, my Barista, walked out into his garage, the
>> garage
>> door was open, and found a young, punk kid 'Gangsta' looking for
>> something
>> to steal. Steve hardly got to ask what the hell he was doing when the
>> droopy-pants kid draws and fires 5-shots. Fortunately the idiot kid did
>> the
>> stupid, "hold the gun sideways so you look cool," (even though the
>> ejected
>> shells come right back in your face and the shots go off to the right).
>> Cops
>> told Steve he could have shot the kid down.
>
>
> Taking legal advice from cops is generally not a good idea.
Cops, barbers and folks on RGP ... all poor choices.
da pickle
> Rights come from governments. Governments established by people,
> generally, but without a government to preserve and protect that right, it
> isn't real. A right to property is useless if anyone stronger than you can
> take it away anyway.
Beldin, you are confusing the "contract" with the piece of paper that
"proves" it.
~M~
> Only if you're a fucking idiot. Or a right wing activist protesting
> activist judges.
That is very sound reasoning on your part, douche bag.
Which rights did the Constitution create?
Jerry Sturdivant
"garycarson"
>> Three months ago Steve, my Barista, walked out into
>> his garage, the garage door was open, and found a
>> young, punk kid 'Gangsta' looking for something to
>> steal. Steve hardly got to ask what the hell he was
>> doing when the droopy-pants kid draws and fires
>> 5-shots. Fortunately the idiot kid did the stupid, "hold
>> the gun sideways so you look cool," (even though the
>> ejected shells come right back in your face and the
>> shots go off to the right). Cops told Steve he could
>> have shot the kid down.
> Taking legal advice from cops is generally not a good idea.
Not generally. I'd call it good advice: Make sure he's dead. That the body
is still on the property. Get up close for a final shot so the dead guy had
power burns. When the cops show, don't be Mirandized. If you are, stop
talking till you get a lawyer.
Jerry 'n Vegas
- 2 signs in a gas station window: Help wanted, Self service.
garycarson
That guy that tried that in Oklahoma is in jail, he made the mistake of
doing it on camera.
The most important thing to do if you shot someone is do not talk to any
cop -- go ahead and let them arrest you -- talk to a lawyer and don't talk
to anyone else until you are sure of the exact language to use.
Jerry Sturdivant
"garycarson"
>> Not generally. I'd call it good advice: Make sure
>> he's dead. That the body is still on the property.
>> Get up close for a final shot so the dead guy had
>> power burns. When the cops show, don't be
>> Mirandized. If you are, stop talking till you get a lawyer.
> That guy that tried that in Oklahoma is in jail, he
> made the mistake of doing it on camera.
"Justice" should be handled carefully. It's like them dumb cops that know
there's a helicopter overhead, yet continue to, er, 'struggle,' with the bad
guy. That should be done in the Holding Cell. I mean, use some common sense.
This ain't Abu Ghraib.
> The most important thing to do if you shot someone is
> do not talk to any cop -- go ahead and let them arrest
> you -- talk to a lawyer and don't talk to anyone else until
> you are sure of the exact language to use.
Somewhat true. That's what I meant by not letting some cop read you the
Miranda rights before explaining the basic circumstances of what happened.
When I came upon 'situations,' The Detective, or Sergeant or I would try to
get the story, then make suggestions; like tell the person what I would say,
then to clam up till they get a lawyer. I don't know of any cops that are on
the side of the dead bad guy. If you give the cop the basics you'll probably
just be given a notice to appear. No trip to jail. Generally you're only
Mirandized you if you're arrested.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> On Jul 18 2009 2:07 AM, ~M~ wrote:
>
> >news:24cf56aa-5ba1-438f...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jul 17, 3:50 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > If you ever get around to reading the Constitution, you will find that
> > > there is, indeed, NO Constitutional right to self-defense.
>
> > Nor are there Constitutional rights to anything else.
> > The Constitution does not give or grant any rights.
>
> When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
> rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
> rights.
The Ninth Amendment is a big can of worms because it makes it clear
that rights _not_ enumerated in the previous eight have not been lost.
The right to self-defense and a much stronger version of the Second
Amendment were already in place in super-civilized east-coast
Connecticut and the Constitution protects them, via the Ninth
Amendment.
--
Will in New Haven
Beldin the Sorcerer
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OYidnRGBOb8...@giganews.com...
> "Beldin the Sorcerer"
>>
>>> "Travel A" wrote
>>>
>>> She really did come across as a dumb fuck.
>>>
>>> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
>>> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
>>> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
>>> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
>>
>> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so.
>> So Congress could pass a law banning it tomorrow.
>> It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
>
> You guys should really leave any discussion about the constitution and
> "rights" alone.
Unlike research science, it isn't something you need special training to
understand.
Sure, you need training to fight about it in court, but courts have ruled
idiotically in the past.
>
> (You might remember the 9th amendment in your misunderstandings of
> "rights.")
>
> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>
We're discussing Constitutional rights.
Which means rights expressly stated in the constitution.
There are all kinds of other rights protected or granted by various bodies.
> [Beldin, please do not keep calling people names; it annoys the pig.]
Insulting Travel is part of my plan for happiness.
>
James L. Hankins
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6bebc57b-5ff9-40c3...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
Where in the Constitution does it say that anyone has a right to
self-defense?
da pickle
>
> "da pickle"
>>>> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
>>>> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
>>>> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
>>>> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses,
>>>> either.
>>>
>>> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so.
>>> So Congress could pass a law banning it tomorrow.
>>> It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
>>
>> You guys should really leave any discussion about the constitution and
>> "rights" alone.
>
> Why?
> Unlike research science, it isn't something you need special training to
> understand.
A perfect illustration that you likely know as little about what training
one might need to understand either research science or constitutional law.
> Sure, you need training to fight about it in court, but courts have ruled
> idiotically in the past.
And a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Sometimes, you just
type words that have no relation to each other.
>> (You might remember the 9th amendment in your misunderstandings of
>> "rights.")
>>
>> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>
> We're discussing Constitutional rights.
You are not "discussing" anything, Beldin, you are making silly
proclimations that make no sense.
> Which means rights expressly stated in the constitution.
If you were discussing "Constitutional rights" with any understanding about
what that topic might be about, you would not type such a foolish
juxtiposition of words.
> There are all kinds of other rights protected or granted by various
> bodies.
Another non sequitur.
>> [Beldin, please do not keep calling people names; it annoys the pig.]
>
> Insulting Travel is part of my plan for happiness.
It is a poor plan.
James L. Hankins
> On Jul 17 2009 1:44 PM, mo_charles wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I think Sotomeyer is going to make a terrible justice, but not because
>> > she
>> > doesn't know the law.
>>
>> why?
>>
>
> Because she's a strong advocate for government power -- she's an
> authoritarian. Her catholic upbringing colors her views much more than
> her ethnic background or legal education. She believes in the power of
> the state and the power of the state functionary and in strong deference
> to authority.
That's the way I am leaning, too. Some of that is just the way the courts
of appeals work since there is a strong presumption that statutes are
constitutional, the government has broad power, and they are restricted in
interpretation to a large degree by SCOTUS precedent; but still, she does
seem have a bent toward being a government company man.
Funny thing about SCOTUS nominees, though, is that many of them actually
judge much differently than the President who nominated them expected.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> "Beldin the Sorcerer" spewed ...
>>
>> "da pickle"
>
>>>>> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
>>>>> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
>>>>> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
>>>>> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses,
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so.
>>>> So Congress could pass a law banning it tomorrow.
>>>> It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
>>>
>>> You guys should really leave any discussion about the constitution and
>>> "rights" alone.
>>
>> Why?
>> Unlike research science, it isn't something you need special training to
>> understand.
>
>
> A perfect illustration that you likely know as little about what training
> one might need to understand either research science or constitutional
> law.
>
We're discussing what it says.
A trained lair, er, LAWYER, can argue something completely different, of
course.
Doesn't change what it says.
Unlike science, which takes actual classes and instruction to know what the
readings mean.
>
>> Sure, you need training to fight about it in court, but courts have ruled
>> idiotically in the past.
>
>
> And a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. Sometimes, you just
> type words that have no relation to each other.
No, the meaning is clear. You just don't like it.
>
>
>>> (You might remember the 9th amendment in your misunderstandings of
>>> "rights.")
>>>
>>> "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
>>> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
>>>
>> We're discussing Constitutional rights.
>
>
> You are not "discussing" anything, Beldin, you are making silly
> proclimations that make no sense.
Wrong as usual, Jonnie.
You just are thinking like a lawyer, not a citizen, or a historian.
>
>
>> Which means rights expressly stated in the constitution.
>
>
> If you were discussing "Constitutional rights" with any understanding
> about what that topic might be about, you would not type such a foolish
> juxtiposition of words.
Not hardly true.
>
>
>> There are all kinds of other rights protected or granted by various
>> bodies.
>
>
> Another non sequitur.
Christ, Jonnie, go read the fucking thread.
Clearly you missed the discussion.
>
>
>>> [Beldin, please do not keep calling people names; it annoys the pig.]
>>
>> Insulting Travel is part of my plan for happiness.
>
>
> It is a poor plan.
Naw, it's easy to do, and fun.
>
>
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7)
From: Beldin the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
I wrote:
She really did come across as a dumb fuck.
The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
Beldonk drooled:
And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
....................................................................................
I wrote:
Beldonk, that was about as dumb a comment as they come. You really have
zero idea what you're talking about.
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: ~M~ <~M~@gmail.com>
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:tm78j6x...@recgroups.com...
.............................................
M wrote:
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
Gary Caron wrote:
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
the Constitution does not enumerate.
..............................................................................
I wrote:
Gary Carson's comment is right. The Constitution is a declaration of
specifics where government can't interfere.
The list of restrictions in the Constitution against the government are
those that the founding fathers wanted to be explicit and unequivocal.
It doesn't mean they were making "rights" demands and the Constitution
grants them. They had the rights already, and the Constitution makes it
clear that the government can't interfere in those MOST important rights
listed which ensures freedom from government oppression.
That's why an idiot like Beldonk claiming that the constitution "grants"
the right to gay "marriage" is ridiculous
The Constitution also has zero to do with abortion.
The founding fathers did anticipate statute law though, obviously.
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: da pickle <jcpi...@hotmail.com>
"Beldin the Sorcerer"
...............................................................................
I wrote:
I don't have a misunderstanding, Pickel, you do. There's nothing that
you Googled or babbled that applies to anything I've stated.
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: da pickle <jcpi...@hotmail.com>
"Travel A"
The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
There is, however, an explicit restriction against the government
preventing you from owning guns.
...................................
Pickel babbled in desperation to appear knowledgeable:
"I simple way of explaining the constitution is that it is a directive
to the federal government stating "specifically" what it can do ... not
what it should not do ..."
I wrote:
No, Pickel, I've explained it the "simple" way. You have it backwards.
You're absolutely wrong and your rambling goo below has been
snipped as pathetic obfuscation. I really doesn't seem that the
Constitution is "your area".
Still wating for evidence of what IS "your area".
Travel A
Gary Carson wrote:
Taking legal advice from cops is generally not a good idea.
Pickel wrote:
"Cops, barbers and folks on RGP ... all poor choices."
I wrote:
And Pickel would be the worst choice. Fortunately, Pickel's lack of
writing skills saves most from having to wade through his endless jungle
of useless pomposity, guesswork and bad logic.
~M~
> M wrote:
> When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
> rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
> rights.
No he didn't
Gary Dipshit did.
> Gary Caron wrote:
> When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
> belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
> the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
> dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
> the Constitution does not enumerate.
No he didn't. ~M~ did.
Gary Nitwit thinks the Constitution created rights for us subjects. ~M~
knows better.
> I wrote:
> Gary Carson's comment is right. The Constitution is a declaration of
> specifics where government can't interfere.
Actually, neither comment (yours or Gary's) is right.
The Constitution is the creation of a federal government and the assignment
of its powers. That is all it is.
> The list of restrictions in the Constitution against the government are
> those that the founding fathers wanted to be explicit and unequivocal.
While some restrictions of government powers might have been given (it's not
worth arguing the point), the government was given only the powers
specifically spelled out in the Constitution. That was the purpose of the
Constitution.
> It doesn't mean they were making "rights" demands and the Constitution
> grants them. They had the rights already, and the Constitution makes it
> clear that the government can't interfere in those MOST important rights
> listed which ensures freedom from government oppression.
Now we're getting somewhere.
> That's why an idiot like Beldonk claiming that the constitution "grants"
> the right to gay "marriage" is ridiculous
He is a turd, and it is better not speak his name, unless in a signature
that exposes his incredible stupidity.
da pickle
> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
> There is, however, an explicit restriction against the government
> preventing you from owning guns.
>
>
> ...................................
> Pickel babbled in desperation to appear knowledgeable:
>
> "I simple way of explaining the constitution is that it is a directive
> to the federal government stating "specifically" what it can do ... not
> what it should not do ..."
>
>
> I wrote:
> No, Pickel, I've explained it the "simple" way. You have it backwards.
> You're absolutely wrong and your rambling goo below has been
> snipped as pathetic obfuscation. I really doesn't seem that the
> Constitution is "your area".
>
> Still wating for evidence of what IS "your area".
I am admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States ... you?
You have it backwards. The body of the constitution is a limitation on
federal power by enumerating the powers of the federal government. State
governments have sovereign power. For the judicial branches, one can say
that the federal court is a court of "limited jurisdiction" and a state
court is a court of "general jurisdiction."
I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but I have forgotten more than
you apparently have ever thought about thinking that you know.
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: da pickle <jcpi...@hotmail.com>
"Travel A" wrote:
The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
There is, however, an explicit restriction against the government
preventing you from owning guns.
..................................
Pickel babbled in desperation to appear knowledgeable:
"I simple way of explaining the constitution is that it is a directive
to the federal government stating "specifically" what it can do ... not
what it should not do ..."
I wrote:
No, Pickel, I've explained it the "simple" way. You have it backwards.
You're absolutely wrong and your rambling goo below has been snipped as
pathetic obfuscation. It really doesn't seem that the Constitution is
"your area".
Still wating for evidence of what IS "your area".
Pickle wrote:
"I am admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States"
I wrote:
Your head is admitted up your ass. Sotomayor sounds brilliant compared
to you.
Piclel wrote:
You have it backwards."
I wrote:
No, it's you who has it backwards, and I proved it, above, simply by
using our own words.
You challenged me when I state that: "the Constitution is a list of
restrictions on he government."
Your laughable dispute is your statement: "...the constitution is that
it is a directive to the federal government stating "specifically" what
it can do ... not what it should not do ..." Your statement isjut
flat-out, totall wrong. In fact, it's the exact opposite of what's
right.
Pickel wrote:
"The body of the constitution is a limitation on federal power by
enumerating the powers of the federal government."
I wrote:
Lol! above, ( in your previous statement, quoted) you stated that the
Constitution states what the government CAN do, not what it CAN'T do.
You're totally wrong. I corrected you and told your dumb ass that you
had it backwards: "the Constitution is a list of restrictions on the
government"; that means what it CAN'T do, you blithering idiot. Now,
your using the word "limitation" in: "limitation on federal powers". In
your second statement, you're backing-off your first statement. You must
have discovered that you're wrong in the interim, and you're now
dancing.
But, no, you didn't stop there. You went on to contradict your own back
pedaling within that the same statement with: "by enumerating the
federal powers"
Okay, here's your entire statement:
"The body of the constitution is a limitation on federal power by
enumerating the powers of the federal government."
Do you even realize how dumb that made-up weaseling double talk looks?
Too funny.
Next time Pickel, just state: "The body of the Constitution is a
limitation on federal power" and STOP there.
Now, you just flp-flopped in your latest statement (immediately above)
and you're now saying what I told you was correct, lol. It's all there
on this post, plainly, for all to see.
You need your head examined, if you ever get it out of your ass,
Pickel. You look like an imbecile; like a Beldonk.
That's what happens when you flame someone with a snarky contradiction
when you're wrong in the first place. In your zest to be the perfect
condescending, pompous asshole, you tripped over yourself and fell flat
on your face.
At least, from my correcting your drivel, you now know what the
Constitution is exactly.
...................................................
(snip the obfuscating crap about irrelevant state Constitutions)
Travel A
I wrote:
The Constitution is a declaration of specifics where government can't
interfere.
M wrote:
'Actually, neither comment (yours or Gary's) is right. The Constitution
is the creation of a federal government and the assignment of its
powers. That is all it is."
I wrote:
You're absolutely wrong. Read the amendments, they're clearly and
without question, restrictions on the government. And the establishment
of the government is also a restriction by the very fact it specifies
the structure of government.
Travel A
M wrote:
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
M wrote:
"No he didn't
Gary Dipshit did."
Gary Caron wrote:
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
the Constitution does not enumerate.
M wrote:
"No he didn't. ~M~ did.
Gary Nitwit thinks the Constitution created rights for us subjects. ~M~
knows better"
...............................................................
I wrote:
Ya, I caught that later, where the post as it appeared, attributed your,
and Gary Carson's quotes in reverse order.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:862-4A62...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
>
> >
> That's why an idiot like Beldonk claiming that the constitution "grants"
> the right to gay "marriage" is ridiculous
The constitution guarantees the right to privacy and non-discrimination.
>
> The Constitution also has zero to do with abortion.
>
See above, shithead.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
> Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
> Group: rec.gambling.poker
> Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7)
> From: Beldin the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
>
>
> "Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
> I wrote:
> She really did come across as a dumb fuck.
> The Constitution is a list of restrictions against the government. Why
> would her answer be: she doesn't think there's anything in the
> Constitution about self-defense? I mean, why would there be? There's
> nothing in the Constitution about the right to feed your horses, either.
>
> Beldonk drooled:
> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
> pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
> ....................................................................................
>
> I wrote:
> Beldonk, that was about as dumb a comment as they come. You really have
> zero idea what you're talking about.
>
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 9:04am (PDT+3) From: ~M~
<~M~@gmail.com>
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:tm78j6x...@recgroups.com...
............................................
M wrote:
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
Gary Caron wrote:
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
the Constitution does not enumerate.
.............................................
I wrote:
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7) From: Beldin
the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
I wrote:
She really did come across as a dumb fuck. The Constitution is a list of
restrictions against the government. Why would her answer be: she
doesn't think there's anything in the Constitution about self-defense? I
mean, why would there be? There's nothing in the Constitution about the
right to feed your horses, either.
Beldonk drooled:
And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
.............................................
I wrote:
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
>
>
> Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
> rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7) From: Beldin
> the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
>
>
> "Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
> I wrote:
> She really did come across as a dumb fuck. The Constitution is a list of
> restrictions against the government. Why would her answer be: she
> doesn't think there's anything in the Constitution about self-defense? I
> mean, why would there be? There's nothing in the Constitution about the
> right to feed your horses, either.
>
> Beldonk drooled:
> And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
> pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
> .............................................
>
> I wrote:
> Beldonk, that was about as dumb a comment as they come. You really have
> zero idea what you're talking about.
Well, we all know you're an idiot.
And we all know congress CAN pass all kinds of idiotic laws.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:862-4A62...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7) From: Beldin
the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
I wrote:
She really did come across as a dumb fuck. The Constitution is a list of
restrictions against the government. Why would her answer be: she
doesn't think there's anything in the Constitution about self-defense? I
mean, why would there be? There's nothing in the Constitution about the
right to feed your horses, either.
Beldonk drooled:
And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
............................................
I wrote:
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 9:04am (PDT+3) From: ~M~
<~M~@gmail.com>
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:tm78j6x...@recgroups.com...
...........................................
M wrote:
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
Gary Caron wrote:
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
the Constitution does not enumerate.
............................................
I wrote:
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:862-4A62...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:862-4A62...@baytvnwsxa002.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 9:04am (PDT+3) From: ~M~
<~M~@gmail.com>
"garycarson" <garyc...@alumni.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:tm78j6x...@recgroups.com...
..........................................
M wrote:
When we talk about constitutional rights we're usually talking about
rights that are explicitly protected by/in the constitution. Enumerated
rights.
Gary Caron wrote:
When we talk about Constitutional rights, we perpetrate the incorrect
belief that the Constitution creates or grants rights. The rights that
the Constitution enumerated existed before the Constitution, and are not
dependent upon it for their existence. The same goes for the ones that
the Constitution does not enumerate.
...........................................
I wrote:
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense Group:
rec.gambling.poker Date: Sat, Jul 18, 2009, 12:49pm (PDT+7) From: Beldin
the Sorcerer <beld...@verizon.net>
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
I wrote:
She really did come across as a dumb fuck. The Constitution is a list of
restrictions against the government. Why would her answer be: she
doesn't think there's anything in the Constitution about self-defense? I
mean, why would there be? There's nothing in the Constitution about the
right to feed your horses, either.
Beldonk drooled:
And there isn't a constitututional right to do so. So Congress could
pass a law banning it tomorrow. It'd be idiotic, but then, so are you.
...........................................
I wrote:
Beldin the Sorcerer
Travel the shithead, displaying his 'Head in the Ass" artistic statement
Beldin the Sorcerer
Travel will ATTEMPT to remove his head from his ass
"Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
~M~
> You're absolutely wrong. Read the amendments, they're clearly and
> without question, restrictions on the government. And the establishment
> of the government is also a restriction by the very fact it specifies
> the structure of government.
They are also useless appendages, added after the fact, and unnecessary if
the Constitution is interpreted as written with the intent of the framers.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdqdnYkqjIwNkf7X...@giganews.com...
> "Travel A" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:25883-4A6...@baytvnwsxa001.msntv.msn.com...
>
>> You're absolutely wrong. Read the amendments, they're clearly and
>> without question, restrictions on the government. And the establishment
>> of the government is also a restriction by the very fact it specifies
>> the structure of government.
>
> They are also useless appendages, added after the fact, and unnecessary if
> the Constitution is interpreted as written with the intent of the framers.
>
document.
So nothing added is useless.
da pickle
> (snip the obfuscating crap about irrelevant state Constitutions)
I did not mention state constitutions ... between you and Beldin mixing
legal concepts of legislative and judicial and executive powers concerning
the federal government, it is quite difficult to separate your
misunderstandings. The conglomeration of error is so impacted that no
laxative could clear the thread sufficiently to allow a clear passage for an
accurate assessment of the contents.
James L. Hankins
"da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3rWdnWqOxbh...@giganews.com...
Best to just stay out of it.
FL Turbo
What's the problem?
Are you afraid to step into the middle of a pissing contest?
You scaredycat.
buffalo
> Excerpted from the Senate hearings.
>
> The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn,
> R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that
> found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental
> right."
>
> Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second
> Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold
> as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered:
> "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of
> one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."
>
> �http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/saunders/#ixzz0LVoyoDQg
>
> WOW �as far as I am concerned the right to self defense is THE single
> most important right of all. Protecting your very life trumps anything
> else.
>
> It is so blindingly obvious that I can hardly believe a judicial
> appointee could say such a thing. �Is there ANYONE in RGP who thinks
> they don't have the right to defend themselves. �This is not about
> guns. �I know, the discussion was in the context of gun ownership, but
> her comments are clear. �You do not have the right to defend
> yourself. �She did not say "with a gun"
>
> This woman is an idiot.
I wish for the return of an early Texas law, if you kill any police
serving an arrest warrant and are found not guilt of the charges
of that warrant, no homicides can be brought. Only then will
you have any legal right of self defense.
James L. Hankins
"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:d1d6659hp1mqj1i0e...@4ax.com...
Ain't skeered, it's just kind of pointless. Like a brain surgeon ignoring
two auto mechanics discussing brain surgery. What would be the point of it?
da pickle
>>>>> (snip the obfuscating crap about irrelevant state Constitutions)
>>>>
>>>> I did not mention state constitutions ... between you and Beldin mixing
>>>> legal concepts of legislative and judicial and executive powers
>>>> concerning
>>>> the federal government, it is quite difficult to separate your
>>>> misunderstandings. The conglomeration of error is so impacted that no
>>>> laxative could clear the thread sufficiently to allow a clear passage
>>>> for
>>>> an accurate assessment of the contents.
>>>
>>>
>>>Best to just stay out of it.
>>>
>>
>> What's the problem?
>> Are you afraid to step into the middle of a pissing contest?
>>
>> You scaredycat.
>
>
> Ain't skeered, it's just kind of pointless. Like a brain surgeon ignoring
> two auto mechanics discussing brain surgery. What would be the point of
> it?
You are correct, James.
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: da pickle <jcpi...@hotmail.com>
"Travel A"
...............................................................................
I wrote:
Pickel, beyond your misunderstandings is the that fact your obviously
wrong, and went into dancing, babbling mode in desperation. Look at all
that goo you just posted, above...
Travel A
Re: According to Sotomayer there is no right to self defense
Group: rec.gambling.poker
From: James L. Hankins <jhan...@cox.net>
"Travel A"
Hankins wrote:
"Best to just stay out of it."
I wrote:
For Pickel and you to avoid embarrassing yourselves, absolutely.
Pickel stated that the Constitution states what the Constitution CAN do
NOT what it CAN'T do. It's obviously the other way around, and Pickel
nor you, can
get around it. Neither one of you should even be commenting on the
Constitution.
Travel A
Hankins wrote:
Ain't skeered, it's just kind of pointless. Like a brain surgeon
ignoring two auto mechanics discussing brain surgery. What would be the
point of it?
I wrote:
Translation, he's miffed about the winning side, me, but he knows
Pickel's wrong and therefore has to keep his mouth shut.
Silence, with regard to substantive input on the topic, as the case with
Turbotard, indicates ignorance of the subject matter.
Hankins level is: a hack for the local Oklahoma ACORN chapter.
~M~
news:tNE8m.19$646...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> The intent of the framers was that the constitution be a living, changing
> document.
> So nothing added is useless.
It's a document, and not living. Even though it lasted longer than the 200
years you plan on.
da pickle
> Pickel stated that the Constitution states what the Constitution CAN do
> NOT what it CAN'T do.
I'll let you got, travel ... (the constitution does not "do" anything).
> It's obviously the other way around, and Pickel
> nor you, can get around it. Neither one of you should
> even be commenting on the Constitution.
You are probably correct ... I am not an expert on the Constitution.
da pickle
> (snip the obfuscating crap about irrelevant state Constitutions)
>
> "I did not mention state constitutions ... between you and Beldin mixing
> legal concepts of legislative and judicial and executive powers
> concerning the federal government, it is quite difficult to separate
> your misunderstandings. The conglomeration of error is so impacted that
> no laxative could clear the thread sufficiently to allow a clear passage
> for an accurate assessment of the contents."
>
> ...............................................................................
>
>
> I wrote:
> Pickel, beyond your misunderstandings is the that fact your obviously
> wrong, and went into dancing, babbling mode in desperation. Look at all
> that goo you just posted, above...
It was just a loquacious way of saying you are full of it, travel.