Profligate spending by EMI wastrels
Matthew B. Tepper
30T00:00:01-00:00
or http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysfk4h
No wonder that Domingo "Tristan" was being claimed to be the "last" studio
opera recording (which, of course, it wasn't, except maybe at this label).
I wonder how much money they just shoved up their noses?
What a crooked, crooked industry.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's fault!
Steve de Mena
> http://arts.independent.co.uk/music/news/article3209881.ece#2007-11-
> 30T00:00:01-00:00
>
> or http://preview.tinyurl.com/ysfk4h
>
> No wonder that Domingo "Tristan" was being claimed to be the "last" studio
> opera recording (which, of course, it wasn't, except maybe at this label).
I think Tristan was *exactly* what they claimed it to be, their last
big budget studio opera recording.
Steve
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
news:4750d165$0$2309$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Yes, but some lazy journalists conveniently skipped some of the words which
qualified it. See what Alex Ross says about his inept compatriots:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/09/26/050926crmu_music
By the way, if this sort of wastefulness went on at EMI, lately the "poor
relation" among the so-called "majors," would it be surprising if the same
pattern was the practice (and maybe still is) at Sony BMG, Universal, and
Warner Music? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.
Imagine if the following chain of events were to come to pass:
Hillary Clinton elected president. (And Bob Harper flees to Switzerland.)
President Clinton 44 nominates beleaguered New York Governor Eliot Spitzer
to be United States Attorney General.
USAG Spitzer commences investigation of criminal activities in the music
industry.
Sony BMG, Universal Music, EMI and Warner all subjected to microscopic
audits of all income and outgo. Executives all the way up to CEOs are
compelled to turn out their pockets upon entering or leaving their offices.
RIAA offices raided on suspicion of fraud, grand larceny, embezzlement,
burglary, murder, treason, shoplifting, jaywalking, horse thievery, and
mopery with intent to gawk. All employees subjected to cavity searches.
I could go on, but just at the moment I feel the urge to dance a happy jig.
Steve de Mena
I can't imagine why *anyone* would care, or even expend an ounce of
energy thinking about, what happened to any of these CEOs.
Steve
Matthew B. Tepper
Well, I cared about what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco
International, who blew $400 of that company's money, including $2 million
for an extravagant birthday party for his wife. I also cared about what
happened to all of the Enron scoundrels who raided their employees' pension
funds. And I cared about what happened to the Rigas family, who ran
Adelphia and skimmed money to pay for their own purposes.
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Why are you holding your nose?
Bob Harper
(snip)
> Imagine if the following chain of events were to come to pass:
>
> Hillary Clinton elected president. (And Bob Harper flees to Switzerland.)
Couldn't afford to. Spain or Slovenia would be more like it :)
>
> President Clinton 44 nominates beleaguered New York Governor Eliot Spitzer
> to be United States Attorney General.
'Beleaguered' because his inherent thuggishness is becoming evident to
lots more people. The guy's a bully, and will, I believe, get his
comeuppance sooner rather than later.
Bob Harper
>
(snip)
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:crSdndSqq7KSrc_a...@comcast.com:
Your opinion, of course, and his ultimate political legacy remains to be
seen. However, if he *is* a "bully," then so much the better in my scheme,
because the music industry passed "completely out of control" long ago, and
the people in charge should be figuratively ground into the dust under the
heel of the U.S. legal system.
Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't want for the industry executives to use
their office chairs to smash through their high-rise windows so they could
jump out. After all, they might hit innocent people below, and it would be
unfair to expect the city of New York to have to pay to clean up their
splattered remains. But I would like to turn on the evening news and see
them doing slo-mo perp walks, wearing orange jumpsuits and ankle chains.
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in
> Well, I cared about what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of
> Tyco International, who blew $400 of that company's money,
$400,000,000, actually. He probably blew $400 of it on a daily basis with
cab fare for the family poodle.
Bob Harper
> Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in
> news:crSdndSqq7KSrc_a...@comcast.com:
>
>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: (snip)
>>> Imagine if the following chain of events were to come to pass:
>>>
>>> Hillary Clinton elected president. (And Bob Harper flees to
>>> Switzerland.)
>> Couldn't afford to. Spain or Slovenia would be more like it :)
>>> President Clinton 44 nominates beleaguered New York Governor
>>> Eliot Spitzer to be United States Attorney General.
>> 'Beleaguered' because his inherent thuggishness is becoming evident
>> to lots more people. The guy's a bully, and will, I believe, get
>> his comeuppance sooner rather than later.
>
> Your opinion, of course,
Of course. But a bit more than an opinion:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010871
Biased against him? Yes, but it's going to be pretty difficult to spin
his actions as 'courageous' or to paint him as a 'reformer' with the
evidence at hand.
> and his ultimate political legacy remains to be
> seen. However, if he *is* a "bully," then so much the better in my
> scheme, because the music industry passed "completely out of control"
> long ago, and the people in charge should be figuratively ground into
> the dust under the heel of the U.S. legal system.
>
> Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't want for the industry executives to
> use their office chairs to smash through their high-rise windows so
> they could jump out. After all, they might hit innocent people
> below, and it would be unfair to expect the city of New York to have
> to pay to clean up their splattered remains. But I would like to
> turn on the evening news and see them doing slo-mo perp walks,
> wearing orange jumpsuits and ankle chains.
I think you're hyperventilating a bit, Matthew.
Bob Harper
Matthew B. Tepper
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>> Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed in
>> news:crSdndSqq7KSrc_a...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote: (snip)
>>>> Imagine if the following chain of events were to come to pass:
>>>>
>>>> Hillary Clinton elected president. (And Bob Harper flees to
>>>> Switzerland.)
>>> Couldn't afford to. Spain or Slovenia would be more like it :)
>>>> President Clinton 44 nominates beleaguered New York Governor
>>>> Eliot Spitzer to be United States Attorney General.
>>> 'Beleaguered' because his inherent thuggishness is becoming evident
>>> to lots more people. The guy's a bully, and will, I believe, get
>>> his comeuppance sooner rather than later.
>>
>> Your opinion, of course,
>
> Of course. But a bit more than an opinion:
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010871
Is this the same one you quoted before about some CEO who was just sitting
in his office one day, figuring out ways to feed all of the starving
children in the Third World, when Evil Eliot phoned him to say, "I hate
you, I'm going to make soup from your eyeballs and then piss on your
mother"? If so, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
> Biased against him? Yes, but it's going to be pretty difficult to spin
> his actions as 'courageous' or to paint him as a 'reformer' with the
> evidence at hand.
Tell you what -- suggest an alternative appointee who'd do the job for me.
>> and his ultimate political legacy remains to be seen. However, if he
>> *is* a "bully," then so much the better in my scheme, because the music
>> industry passed "completely out of control" long ago, and the people in
>> charge should be figuratively ground into the dust under the heel of the
>> U.S. legal system.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong -- I wouldn't want for the industry executives to use
>> their office chairs to smash through their high-rise windows so they
>> could jump out. After all, they might hit innocent people below, and it
>> would be unfair to expect the city of New York to have to pay to clean
>> up their splattered remains. But I would like to turn on the evening
>> news and see them doing slo-mo perp walks, wearing orange jumpsuits and
>> ankle chains.
>
> I think you're hyperventilating a bit, Matthew.
Indeed, but I feel *so* much better afterwards. If I were a smoker, I'd
light up.
Matthew Silverstein
> 'Beleaguered' because his inherent thuggishness is becoming evident to
> lots more people. The guy's a bully, and will, I believe, get his
> comeuppance sooner rather than later.
Bob, out of curiosity, are there any issues on which you're out of step
with the Republican Party?
Matty
Bob Harper
oppose the Prescription Drug Plan (a gigantic new entitlement we can't
afford); I see no constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education
(so NCLB should be LB); the Farm Bill is the usual abomination; the
ethanol business is insane: a $.51/gal subsidy for corn-based ethanol, a
$.54/gal tariff on imported--mostly sugar cane-based--ethanol; tell me
this has *anything* to do with energy independence rather than Farm
State votes. I could go on, but you get the drift.
Bob Harper
The Historian
> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the
>
>
>
> > Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the
> >> following letters to be typed in
> >>news:4750d165$0$2309$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>
> >>> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> >>>>http://arts.independent.co.uk/music/news/article3209881.ece#2007-11-
> >>>> 30T00:00:01-00:00
>
Didn't some of that money make its way to the Buffalo Symphony?
Steve de Mena
I haven't heard of any record company CEOs skimming money lately.
These Tyco or Enron incidents seem to be something different, but I
could see someone comparing a record company spending money releasing
classical CDs that had no hope of making money as no better than
spending it on a wife's lavish birthday party.
Steve
Matthew B. Tepper
following letters to be typed in news:405f0fc7-2b2b-456f-907b-
eaf854...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oy兀earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I cared about what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco
>> International, who blew $400 [million] of that company's money, including
>> $2 million for an extravagant birthday party for his wife. I also cared
>> about what happened to all of the Enron scoundrels who raided their
>> employees' pension funds. And I cared about what happened to the Rigas
>> family, who ran Adelphia and skimmed money to pay for their own purposes.
>
> Didn't some of that money make its way to the Buffalo Symphony?
The Buffalo *Philharmonic* got $20,000 from the NEA a couple of years ago,
and is still raising money for their endowment fund.
Matthew B. Tepper
> Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
>> Steve de Mena <ste...@stevedemena.com> appears to have caused the
>> following letters to be typed in
>> news:47520098$0$2528$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
>>
>>> I can't imagine why *anyone* would care, or even expend an ounce of
>>> energy thinking about, what happened to any of these CEOs.
>>
>> Well, I cared about what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco
>> International, who blew $400 of that company's money, including $2 million
>> for an extravagant birthday party for his wife. I also cared about what
>> happened to all of the Enron scoundrels who raided their employees'
>> pension funds. And I cared about what happened to the Rigas family, who
>> ran Adelphia and skimmed money to pay for their own purposes.
>>
>> Where there's smoke, there's fire. Why are you holding your nose?
>
> I haven't heard of any record company CEOs skimming money lately.
And I haven't heard of anybody being murdered in Washington DC this week, but
you can bet the farm that it has happened.
> These Tyco or Enron incidents seem to be something different, but I could
> see someone comparing a record company spending money releasing classical
> CDs that had no hope of making money as no better than spending it on a
> wife's lavish birthday party.
If you know what you're doing, and have reasonable expectations ("keep making
as much money as the 'Titanic' soundtrack over and over" is not reasonable),
you can make money releasing classical music recordings. Just ask the folks
at any of several of the "indie" labels.
Richard Schultz
: I see no constitutional authority for the Dept. of Education
: (so NCLB should be LB);
If you find a loose interpretation of the Elastic Clause so objectionable,
why do you not find President Bush's penchant for "signing statements,"
which involves a more or less direct violation of Article II, Section 3
(". . . he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. . .")
to be equally objectionable, if not more so?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A false notion which is clear and precise will always meet with a greater
number of adherents in the world than a true principle which is obscure
or involved."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_
The Historian
> The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> appears to have caused the
> following letters to be typed in news:405f0fc7-2b2b-456f-907b-
>
> > On Dec 1, 8:01 pm, "Matthew B. Tepper" <oyþ@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> Well, I cared about what happened to Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco
> >> International, who blew $400 [million] of that company's money, including
> >> $2 million for an extravagant birthday party for his wife. I also cared
> >> about what happened to all of the Enron scoundrels who raided their
> >> employees' pension funds. And I cared about what happened to the Rigas
> >> family, who ran Adelphia and skimmed money to pay for their own purposes.
>
> > Didn't some of that money make its way to the Buffalo Symphony?
>
> The Buffalo *Philharmonic* got $20,000 from the NEA a couple of years ago,
> and is still raising money for their endowment fund.
Thanks for the correction. I recall reading the Rigas family hired the
Buffalo Philharmonic for a holiday concert in Chambersburg, PA, one
year. I'm trying to find the business magazine that cited this
expenditure as an extravagance.
Bob Harper
The President's first duty is to the Constitution, not the Congress. If
Congress insists on passing unconstitutional laws, it is the duty of the
President to refuse to enforce them. This is the purpose (as I
understand it) for the signing statements. It is a matter to be decided
ultimately by the Supreme Court, but while we have heard lots of whining
about signing statements, there's been precious little action in the
courts. And I'll predict there will continue to be very little, because
those in Congress doing the whining want the same flexibility when they
gain control of the Executive.
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
: The President's first duty is to the Constitution, not the Congress. If
: Congress insists on passing unconstitutional laws, it is the duty of the
: President to refuse to enforce them.
Where in the Constitution is the President given the right to decide
whether or not a given law is constitutional or not? If the president
believes that a law should not have been passed for any reason, the
Constitution gives him a specific method for handling the situation.
Or did you not know that?
: This is the purpose (as I understand it) for the signing statements.
That doesn't make them any more constitutional.
: It is a matter to be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court,
In other words, it's perfectly fine by you for the President to usurp
the powers of the Supreme Court in addition to refusing to carry out
his own duties.
: but while we have heard lots of whining
: about signing statements, there's been precious little action in the
: courts. And I'll predict there will continue to be very little, because
: those in Congress doing the whining want the same flexibility when they
: gain control of the Executive.
In other words, you don't care whether an action is constitutional or
not -- you were just using "constitutionality" as a smokescreen for your
objection to a government department whose constitutionality is in fact
beyond question. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the
president from naming any advisers he chooses (with the "advice and consent"
of the Senate, of course), and if he can convince Congress to fund a
department to carry out the job of that advisers, what specifically in
the constitution is there to stop him or them?
Frank Berger
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:fj2pbi$ul$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
Are you aware that the powers granted the federal government are enumerated
in the Constitution specifically and that reasonable people can disagree
about whether a particular Federal government activity is constitutional or
not.
Are you also aware that it is possible to disagree with someone without
demeaning him?
Richard Schultz
: Are you aware that the powers granted the federal government are enumerated
: in the Constitution specifically
As someone who has taken the trouble to read the U.S. Constitution -- more
than once -- I can assure you that the genius of its framers was the trouble
that they went to enumerate the powers granted to the Federal Government
as vaguely as was consistent with having a government that worked at all
(cf. the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation). And when they
*did* enumerate the powers of the government specifically (e.g. the
President is bound to see that the laws are enforced, or that the right
to bear arms is reserved to the States so that they could maintain militias
independent of the U.S. Army), the people who believe that the government's
powers are specifically enumerated suddenly believe that the document is
much vaguer that one would have thought from reading their previously
expressed philosophy.
: and that reasonable people can disagree about whether a particular Federal
: government activity is constitutional or not.
I am aware of that -- that is why the Supreme Court can reverse decisions
made by previous courts.
: Are you also aware that it is possible to disagree with someone without
: demeaning him?
As a scientist, I was trained to differentiate a person's ideas from his
person, and to understand that expressing a negative view of a person's
opinions is not equivalent to demeaning that person. I still remember the
laugh that a seminar speaker (a famous chemist) got when, in response to
a criticism of his hypothesis (made by an equally famous chemist), he
said, "Don't be absurd, Dave!" No doubt you would have objected to
his "demeaning" his interlocutor; while you would have been in your rights
to do so, you would have completely missed the point of what was going on.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Don't say I am great. Say I have begun to be passably honest. It is
more than enough."
-- Thomas Hardy, _The Well-Beloved_
Frank Berger
> In article <13lb6vm...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> : Are you aware that the powers granted the federal government are
> enumerated
> : in the Constitution specifically
>
> As someone who has taken the trouble to read the U.S. Constitution -- more
> than once --
Lot's of people have read the Constitution more than once and still disagree
among each other on what it means.
Why is it that *your* reading gives you such special insight that you can
*assure* us.......
>I can assure you that the genius of its framers was the trouble
> that they went to enumerate the powers granted to the Federal Government
> as vaguely as was consistent with having a government that worked at all
> (cf. the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation). And when they
> *did* enumerate the powers of the government specifically (e.g. the
> President is bound to see that the laws are enforced, or that the right
> to bear arms is reserved to the States so that they could maintain
> militias
> independent of the U.S. Army),
Many Constitutional experts disagree with this interpretation. What makes
*your* interpretation the correct one?
> the people who believe that the government's
> powers are specifically enumerated suddenly believe that the document is
> much vaguer that one would have thought from reading their previously
> expressed philosophy.
>
> : and that reasonable people can disagree about whether a particular
> Federal
> : government activity is constitutional or not.
>
> I am aware of that -- that is why the Supreme Court can reverse decisions
> made by previous courts.
>
> : Are you also aware that it is possible to disagree with someone without
> : demeaning him?
>
> As a scientist, I was trained to differentiate a person's ideas from his
> person, and to understand that expressing a negative view of a person's
> opinions is not equivalent to demeaning that person. I still remember the
> laugh that a seminar speaker (a famous chemist) got when, in response to
> a criticism of his hypothesis (made by an equally famous chemist), he
> said, "Don't be absurd, Dave!"
"Don't be absurd," is marginally better than "You're absurd" That's all I'll
give you. Even then, some would take offense st having his ideas called
absurd. Why would you want to give offense?
bob.h...@comcast.net
> "Richard Schultz" <schu...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
>
(snip)
> >I can assure you that the genius of its framers was the trouble
> > that they went to enumerate the powers granted to the Federal Government
> > as vaguely as was consistent with having a government that worked at all
> > (cf. the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation). And when they
> > *did* enumerate the powers of the government specifically (e.g. the
> > President is bound to see that the laws are enforced, or that the right
> > to bear arms is reserved to the States so that they could maintain
> > militias
> > independent of the U.S. Army),
>
> Many Constitutional experts disagree with this interpretation. What makes
> *your* interpretation the correct one?
Frank, he's a *scientist*, ergo he's much smarter than we are. At
least that seems to be his position. Never mind that his confident
assurance about the 'obvious' meaning of the Second Amendment (the
plain words 'the right of the *people*' notwithstanding) is about to
be tested (and I hope routed) in the forum where the real experts get
to have their say, ie. the SCOTUS,
Bob Harper (who neither owns, nor wishes to own, a firearm, but who
regards the existence of armed, law-abiding citizens as a positive
contribution to societal order)
(snip)
number_six
>snip<
> Where in the Constitution is the President given the right to decide
> whether or not a given law is constitutional or not?
The Constitution does not grant even the judicial branch the power to
overturn an act of Congress as unconstitutional. The judicial branch
took this power for itself early in the nation's history and the other
two branches of the government have largely acceded to that unilateral
action by the judiciary. That would change if a sufficient consensus
arose that the judiciary was overreaching.
The framers understood that there would always be some tensions
between the branches over the exercise of power. The system of checks
and balances has maintained that balance -- and prevented all of the
marbles from going into one corner -- with a high degree of success.
Separation of powers requires that none of the three branches can
claim to have the final word on *all* questions or issues.
ansermetniac
Marbury v Madison
Abbedd
number_six
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correct.
Frank Berger
<bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2f5eeb9d-759b-4aa7...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be allowed to
own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant. Based on
what I've read, I'm pretty sure most constitutional experts expect SCOTUS to
uphold that right. But then, not only am I not a scientist (actually, I am,
though I suppose would not consider an economist to be a scientist), but I
am not lawyer either.
Richard Schultz
: Lot's of people have read the Constitution more than once and still disagree
: among each other on what it means.
: Why is it that *your* reading gives you such special insight that you can
: *assure* us.......
Do you really want a truthful answer to that question? You probably
won't like it, which is why I ask.
: Many Constitutional experts disagree with this interpretation. What makes
: *your* interpretation the correct one?
Do you really want a truthful answer to that question? You probably
won't like it, which is why I ask.
: "Don't be absurd," is marginally better than "You're absurd" That's all I'll
: give you. Even then, some would take offense st having his ideas called
: absurd. Why would you want to give offense?
On what do you base the conclusion that I *want* to give offense? If a
person is incapable of differentiating objections to the opinions he
expresses from personal insults, why should that be my problem rather than
his? If a person's ideas are absurd, why should we not say so? Or, to
put it in terms of a previous post of yours: IMO, someone who resorts to
intellectually dishonest argument has already demeaned himself and insulted
me and my intelligence.
Here's a parable for you: once upon a time, the Emperor decided that he
needed a new set of clothes. A couple of clever con men saw a quick way
of making a buck, and proposed to him that they make his clothes out of a
special new fiber that only Really Smart People [tm] could see. They
pretended to be measuring the cloth, cutting it, sewing it, and fitting the
"clothes" they had produced, when in fact, there was, as I am sure you have
guessed, no cloth at all. The Emperor, naturally, could not see any clothes,
but was far too proud to admit that he wasn't Smart Enough [tm] to see them.
When he walked down the street, if someone would whisper, "Shouldn't we tell
the Emperor that he's naked?" he would inevitably get the response, "Some
would take offense at being told he was naked. Why would you want to
give offense?"
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"All too frequently ornamentations introduced [into the Well-Tempered
Clavier] by players whose taste and skill are not comparable to Bach's
merely resemble the bird droppings that disfigure the statues of great men."
-- Ralph Kirkpatrick
Richard Schultz
: least that seems to be his position. Never mind that his confident
: assurance about the 'obvious' meaning of the Second Amendment (the
: plain words 'the right of the *people*' notwithstanding) is about to
: be tested (and I hope routed) in the forum where the real experts get
: to have their say, ie. the SCOTUS,
Was the Supreme Court a "forum where the real experts get to have their
say" when it decided the Dred Scott case, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or Swann
v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Richard Schultz
: Separation of powers requires that none of the three branches can
: claim to have the final word on *all* questions or issues.
Which is precisely the power that President Bush is claiming for himself
when he makes a "signing statement."
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Frank Berger
> In article <13lbb1c...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> : Lot's of people have read the Constitution more than once and still
> disagree
> : among each other on what it means.
> : Why is it that *your* reading gives you such special insight that you
> can
> : *assure* us.......
>
> Do you really want a truthful answer to that question? You probably
> won't like it, which is why I ask.
In other words, nothing in particular.
>
> : Many Constitutional experts disagree with this interpretation. What
> makes
> : *your* interpretation the correct one?
>
> Do you really want a truthful answer to that question? You probably
> won't like it, which is why I ask.
In other words, nothing in particular.
>
> : "Don't be absurd," is marginally better than "You're absurd" That's all
> I'll
> : give you. Even then, some would take offense st having his ideas called
> : absurd. Why would you want to give offense?
>
> On what do you base the conclusion that I *want* to give offense? If a
> person is incapable of differentiating objections to the opinions he
> expresses from personal insults, why should that be my problem rather than
> his? If a person's ideas are absurd, why should we not say so? Or, to
> put it in terms of a previous post of yours: IMO, someone who resorts to
> intellectually dishonest argument has already demeaned himself and
> insulted
> me and my intelligence.
In other words, you choose to give offense.
>
> Here's a parable for you: once upon a time, the Emperor decided that he
> needed a new set of clothes. A couple of clever con men saw a quick way
> of making a buck, and proposed to him that they make his clothes out of a
> special new fiber that only Really Smart People [tm] could see. They
> pretended to be measuring the cloth, cutting it, sewing it, and fitting
> the
> "clothes" they had produced, when in fact, there was, as I am sure you
> have
> guessed, no cloth at all. The Emperor, naturally, could not see any
> clothes,
> but was far too proud to admit that he wasn't Smart Enough [tm] to see
> them.
> When he walked down the street, if someone would whisper, "Shouldn't we
> tell
> the Emperor that he's naked?" he would inevitably get the response, "Some
> would take offense at being told he was naked. Why would you want to
> give offense?"
You can't justify being rude. What a waste of verbiage.
Bob Harper
Nobody's perfect. Not even you, Richard :)
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
:> Was the Supreme Court a "forum where the real experts get to have their
:> say" when it decided the Dred Scott case, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or Swann
:> v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade?
: Nobody's perfect.
If the Supreme Court is not perfect, what standards to you use to determine
that it has made a mistake?
Not even you, Richard :)
I never claimed to be perfect -- quite the contrary, I quite freely admit
that I am not perfect. It's true that I am never wrong, but that is
something entirely different.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Richard Schultz
: You can't justify being rude. What a waste of verbiage.
Are you aware of the contradiction implied by those two sentences?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Bob Harper
> In article <UdednVWi9PXU3cva...@comcast.com>, Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :> Was the Supreme Court a "forum where the real experts get to have their
> :> say" when it decided the Dred Scott case, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or Swann
> :> v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade?
>
> : Nobody's perfect.
>
> If the Supreme Court is not perfect, what standards to you use to determine
> that it has made a mistake?
It's not up to me; history makes that judgment. Dred Scott was
overturned by the Civil War (to which the 13th Amendment was a codicil,
so to speak); Plessy was overturned by Brown and the follow-on
decisions. Both seem to me to be a part of the genius of the American
system. As I frequently tell students, the entire history of the United
States has been, is, and will for the foreseeable future be the
transformation of the opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence
into constitutional republican (note the small 'r') reality. Are we
there yet? No, but we're closer. Have we taken wrong turns? Sometimes,
but we find our way back. To use an overworked but accurate cliché, it's
not a sprint but a marathon.
>
> Not even you, Richard :)
>
> I never claimed to be perfect -- quite the contrary, I quite freely admit
> that I am not perfect. It's true that I am never wrong, but that is
> something entirely different.
I'm glad you've clarified that distinction :)
Bob Harper
number_six
>
> > :> Was the Supreme Court a "forum where the real experts get to have their
> > :> say" when it decided the Dred Scott case, or Plessy v. Ferguson, or Swann
> > :> v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade?
>
> > : Nobody's perfect.
>
> > If the Supreme Court is not perfect, what standards to you use to determine
> > that it has made a mistake?
>
> It's not up to me; history makes that judgment. Dred Scott was
> overturned by the Civil War (to which the 13th Amendment was a codicil,
> so to speak); Plessy was overturned by Brown and the follow-on
> decisions. Both seem to me to be a part of the genius of the American
> system. As I frequently tell students, the entire history of the United
> States has been, is, and will for the foreseeable future be the
> transformation of the opening phrases of the Declaration of Independence
> into constitutional republican (note the small 'r') reality. Are we
> there yet? No, but we're closer. Have we taken wrong turns? Sometimes,
> but we find our way back. To use an overworked but accurate cliché, it's
> not a sprint but a marathon.
>
Rehnquist once said "We are not infallible; we are only final."
number_six
> number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Separation of powers requires that none of the three branches can
> : claim to have the final word on *all* questions or issues.
>
> Which is precisely the power that President Bush is claiming for himself
> when he makes a "signing statement."
>
Neither in scope nor in kind.
By definition, the executive branch is where the action is. The
signing statement signals the manner in which the executive branch
intends to implement the law.
Congress can clarify its "piece o' legislation" (as the current
President calls it) if need be, and if a party with standing brings a
controversy to the courts, then the judicial branch may also have its
say with regard to that implementation.
Richard Schultz
: By definition, the executive branch is where the action is. The
: signing statement signals the manner in which the executive branch
: intends to implement the law.
The president is *required* by the constitution to see to it that the
laws of the land are faithfully executed. Saying "I am signing this bill
into law, but I will not enforce it" is a direct violation of that
constitutional requirement. If the president does not like a law, he
is free to veto it, and if it is passed over his veto, see to it that
someone sets up a test case and that his solicitor general advises him
that the law is probably unconstitutional and therefore he shouldn't
try too hard.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Simon Roberts
>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be allowed to
>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
The issue is what the Second Amendment means. Whether that is determined by
"what the framers meant" is as much a matter of dispute as what the amendment
means.
Simon
Frank Berger
"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fj718...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
>
>>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be allowed
>>to
>>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
>
> The issue is what the Second Amendment means.
My mistake. That was what I should have said.
ansermetniac
It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
from foreign unfriendlies
If you want to kill your neighbor you have to use your axe and some
elbow grease
Abbedd
Frank Berger
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gu5el3tj49lcmd8tq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:24:44 -0600, "Frank Berger"
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:fj718...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
>>>
>>>>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be
>>>>allowed
>>>>to
>>>>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
>>>
>>> The issue is what the Second Amendment means.
>>
>>My mistake. That was what I should have said.
>>
>>
>
>
> It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
> from foreign unfriendlies
>
No, this is is want you *want* it to mean. What it actually means is a
matter for constitutional scholars, the predominent number of which think it
means individuals can own guns.
ansermetniac
<frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>constitutional scholars
Definition please. It is not in Yiddish or Swahili, it is in plain
English
What percentage of the men at the constitutional convention were
lawyers?
Abbedd
Bob Lombard
---------
Is it reasonably safe to assume that 'what the framers meant' was the
meaning that the states had in mind when they ratified the constitution? If
so, it would be unethical to change the 'meaning' with out asking the states
to ratify the change.
bl
Bob Lombard
news:13le86l...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gu5el3tj49lcmd8tq...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 15:24:44 -0600, "Frank Berger"
>> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:fj718...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>> In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
>>>>
>>>>>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be
>>>>>allowed
>>>>>to
>>>>>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
>>>>
>>>> The issue is what the Second Amendment means.
>>>
>>>My mistake. That was what I should have said.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
>> from foreign unfriendlies
>>
>
really stupid amendment to have in the Bill of Rights.
bl
Frank Berger
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 16:06:13 -0600, "Frank Berger"
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
>>constitutional scholars
>
> Definition please. It is not in Yiddish or Swahili, it is in plain
> English
>
I suppose that would be people who have made a career or profession of
studying the constitution.
> What percentage of the men at the constitutional convention were
> lawyers?
Don't know. I suppose since there were fewer laws, you needed fewer lawyers
in the leadership. It was a different time, you know.
ansermetniac
I speak English and know what the words mean. Freedom of speech is
stupid too. It was made proper when the Supreme Court said that it
does not including yelling fire in a crowded movie house. While
freedom of speech needed that clarification, the second ammendment is
quite clear. Why would the first clause be there if it did not have
any meaning. Stupidity is relative. What is stupid to a normal person
is not to a person who is protecting his oil interests.
Abbedd
Simon Roberts
>
>"Simon Roberts" <sd...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:fj718...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
>>
>>>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be allowed
>>>to
>>>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
>>
>> The issue is what the Second Amendment means. Whether that is determined
>> by
>> "what the framers meant" is as much a matter of dispute as what the
>> amendment
>> means.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
>---------
>Is it reasonably safe to assume that 'what the framers meant' was the
>meaning that the states had in mind when they ratified the constitution?
I have no idea.
If
>so, it would be unethical to change the 'meaning' with out asking the states
>to ratify the change.
What if "what the framers meant" included that the meaning of the constitution
wasn't limited to their specific intent?
By the way, it may not be in the best interests of those who want to read the
Second Amendment as providing for the unrestricted individual ownership of
weapons to rely so heavily on what the Bill of Rights "originally" meant; after
all, it was written to restrict the power of only the federal government....
Simon
Richard Schultz
: In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
One question that I've had, an answer to which I've never been able to get
from the "original intent" crowd, is that since the Fourteenth Amendment
not only changes the law as written, but clearly does so in a manner that was
opposed to the original intent of the framers of the constitution, to what
extent is "original intent" even relevant in any issue touched by the
Fourteenth Amendment?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
:> It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
:> from foreign unfriendlies
: No, this is is want you *want* it to mean. What it actually means is a
: matter for constitutional scholars,
Stop me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the opening
words of the U.S. Constitution are "We, the People. . ." not "We, the
Constitutional Scholars." For that matter, since when have constitutional
scholars determined the meaning of the constitution (as opposed to, say,
the U.S. Supreme Court, most of whose members are chosen for their politics,
not their scholarship).
: the predominent number of which think it means individuals can own guns.
Have you taken a poll lately? And what do these constitutional scholars
of yours think the framers were thinking when they included the clause
about "A Well-regulated militia"? If the intent was to allow individuals
to own guns, why not come out and say so?
Bob Harper
Not that I expect it to make the slightest difference to you, but the
words 'well-regulated militia' are explicated here
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
in a manner which seems quite in tune with the Founders' intentions, but
quite out of tune with your view of the matter.
I'd be quite satisfied if you'd agree that there are two sides to the
question, and that reasonable men can take either reasonably. Is that
too much to ask?
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
: Not that I expect it to make the slightest difference to you, but the
: words 'well-regulated militia' are explicated here
:
: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
:
: in a manner which seems quite in tune with the Founders' intentions, but
: quite out of tune with your view of the matter.
Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their attempts
to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
: I'd be quite satisfied if you'd agree that there are two sides to the
: question, and that reasonable men can take either reasonably. Is that
: too much to ask?
I don't know. Is it too much to ask that there are two sides to the
question of whether slavery was necessarily a bad thing?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Bob Lombard
> In article <o7WdnY_IG6AyE8ra...@comcast.com>, Bob Harper <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : Not that I expect it to make the slightest difference to you, but the
> : words 'well-regulated militia' are explicated here
> :
> : http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
> :
> : in a manner which seems quite in tune with the Founders' intentions, but
> : quite out of tune with your view of the matter.
>
> Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their attempts
> to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
> that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
> organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
> was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
>
> : I'd be quite satisfied if you'd agree that there are two sides to the
> : question, and that reasonable men can take either reasonably. Is that
> : too much to ask?
>
> I don't know. Is it too much to ask that there are two sides to the
> question of whether slavery was necessarily a bad thing?
>
> -----
document describing rights of individuals?
bl
Frank Berger
> In article <13le86l...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> :> It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
> :> from foreign unfriendlies
>
> : No, this is is want you *want* it to mean. What it actually means is a
> : matter for constitutional scholars,
>
> Stop me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the opening
> words of the U.S. Constitution are "We, the People. . ." not "We, the
> Constitutional Scholars." For that matter, since when have constitutional
> scholars determined the meaning of the constitution (as opposed to, say,
> the U.S. Supreme Court, most of whose members are chosen for their
> politics,
> not their scholarship).
>
Which of the current Supreme Court justices are not constitutional scholars?
> : the predominent number of which think it means individuals can own guns.
>
> Have you taken a poll lately?
I don't take polls. I read and form opinions from what I read.
> And what do these constitutional scholars
> of yours
They're not "mine." Also my error about referring to the "framers" was
pointed out in an earlier post.
> think the framers were thinking when they included the clause
> about "A Well-regulated militia"? If the intent was to allow individuals
> to own guns, why not come out and say so?
>
You can ask this type of question about any matter in the Constitution that
is subject to disagreement, can't you? Or any matter subject to
disagreement at all, for that matter.
This interpretation comes from the context that people had their own guns
(they always had had) and when a militia was formed, they brought their own
guns. Also, in a Talmudic-scholarship-like manner, references to the "right
of the people" in other portions of the constitution/bill of rights refer to
individuals, so that is applied to the second amendment as well.
Wikipedia seems to have a balanced discussion.
bob.h...@comcast.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for saving me the trouble of coming up with a reply to a rather
snarky comment. Yours is perfect.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
> In article <o7WdnY_IG6AyE8ra...@comcast.com>, Bob Harper
> <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> : Not that I expect it to make the slightest difference to you, but the
> : words 'well-regulated militia' are explicated here
> :
> : http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
> :
> : in a manner which seems quite in tune with the Founders' intentions, but
> : quite out of tune with your view of the matter.
>
> Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their attempts
> to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
> that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
> organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
> was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
>
Which says nothing about who owns the guns.
O
<sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote:
> In article <fj718...@drn.newsguy.com>, Simon Roberts <sd...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> : In article <13lbi73...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger says...
>
> :>Of course your (or my) opinion on whether individuals *should* be allowed
> :>to
> :>own guns isn't the issue. The issue is what the framers meant.
> :
> : The issue is what the Second Amendment means. Whether that is determined by
> : "what the framers meant" is as much a matter of dispute as what the
> : amendment
> : means.
>
> One question that I've had, an answer to which I've never been able to get
> from the "original intent" crowd, is that since the Fourteenth Amendment
> not only changes the law as written, but clearly does so in a manner that was
> opposed to the original intent of the framers of the constitution, to what
> extent is "original intent" even relevant in any issue touched by the
> Fourteenth Amendment?
Or, indeed, for any law. It's hard to imagine that John Adams, in
writing the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, planned
that his particular wording would later be used as the justification to
allow gay marriage. Likewise, look at the RICO statute, intended to
nab mobsters, used against abortion protestors.
-Owen
number_six
> In article <2fbae69c-0bfa-47ae-b4c8-bf754b659...@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, number_six <cyberi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> : By definition, the executive branch is where the action is. The
> : signing statement signals the manner in which the executive branch
> : intends to implement the law.
>
> The president is *required* by the constitution to see to it that the
> laws of the land are faithfully executed. Saying "I am signing this bill
> into law, but I will not enforce it" is a direct violation of that
> constitutional requirement. If the president does not like a law, he
> is free to veto it, and if it is passed over his veto, see to it that
> someone sets up a test case and that his solicitor general advises him
> that the law is probably unconstitutional and therefore he shouldn't
> try too hard.
>
> -----
> Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
> Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
> -----
> "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
This issue is not as cut and dried as you have portrayed it.
The chief executive is quite aware of the Constitutional language you
cited, and believes that, consistent with his oath of office, he is in
fact adhering to that requirement. Because this president is in his
second term, the only mechanisms to test the validity of his position
lie in the hands of the other two branches of the government.
At all times, depending on the balance between the political parties,
the issues of the time, and the passions of the electorate, there is a
complex interplay between the exercise of power by the three
branches. Madison, Jefferson, and the other founders, bless them,
understood that a triangle is a very durable structure.
Richard Schultz
: Is it to much to ask... if you agree that the Bill of Rights is a
: document describing rights of individuals?
The tenth amendment certainly doesn't look like a description of the
rights of individuals to me. Nor do any of them look to me like
descriptions of absolute rights. Even if the second amendment guarantees
the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it gives
*any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more than
the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander another.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
Richard Schultz
: "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:fj8mb2$1an$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
:> Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their attempts
:> to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
:> that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
:> organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
:> was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
: Which says nothing about who owns the guns.
Am I to take your remark as agreement with me that the second amendment
does not necessarily guarantee any given individual to own any particular
arm at any time that he desires? Or are you just engaging in your usual
skill at missing the point?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our Earth?"
"Because of Death! Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
Richard Schultz
: "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
: news:fj7vse$lar$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
: Which of the current Supreme Court justices are not constitutional scholars?
Can you list any pieces of constitutional scholarship published by
Clarence Thomas? Or John Roberts?
:> : the predominent number of which think it means individuals can own guns.
:>
:> Have you taken a poll lately?
:
: I don't take polls. I read and form opinions from what I read.
In other words, your claim that your opinion agrees with that of the
"predominent [sic] number" of constitutional scholars is a claim that
has no actual basis in fact.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Don't say I am great. Say I have begun to be passably honest. It is
more than enough."
-- Thomas Hardy, _The Well-Beloved_
Simon Roberts
Just in case 547 people haven't already said this: no, it isn't. It's a
document placing limits on the power of the federal government.
Simon
James Kahn
Well, yes, but by doing so it confers (residual) rights on the individuals
and the states. And since the B of R has (as I understand it) generally
been extended to states, it in effect lays out rights of individuals.
Subject, of course, to reasonable interpretation and adjudication
when they conflict.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Simon Roberts
It did nothing to stop *states* from restricting those "rights."
And since the B of R has (as I understand it) generally
>been extended to states, it in effect lays out rights of individuals.
Right; but those I'm arguing with/talking to in this thread seem to want to tie
the meaning of the Second Amendment (etc.) to the intentions of those who wrote
it.
Simon
Bob Lombard
>
> Right; but those I'm arguing with/talking to in this thread seem to want to tie
> the meaning of the Second Amendment (etc.) to the intentions of those who wrote
> it.
>
> Simon
>
It is highly illogical "to tie the meaning of the Second Amendment
(etc.) to the intentions of those who" *didn't* write it.
Those intentions are easily discerned by determining the writers'
sense of the term "the people". It turns out to be people as individuals.
Some state constitutions include the right of individuals to keep and
bear arms; some do not. If 2/3rds of the states want to give up the
right to make that determination, there is a procedure in place.
bl
Simon Roberts
>
>Simon Roberts wrote:
>
>>
>>Right; but those I'm arguing with/talking to in this thread seem to want to tie
>>the meaning of the Second Amendment (etc.) to the intentions of those who wrote
>> it.
>>
>> Simon
>>
>It is highly illogical "to tie the meaning of the Second Amendment
>(etc.) to the intentions of those who" *didn't* write it.
If so, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own weapons (or
however you want to put it, and leaving aside whether this must be in relation
to membership in a well-regulated militia). See below.
>Those intentions are easily discerned by determining the writers'
>sense of the term "the people". It turns out to be people as individuals.
That may be; but you're missing a crucial issue: what government is limited by
the Second Amendment? If "original intent" determines the answer, it's only the
federal government. If you're an originalist, and the state of Vermont bans
ownership of guns by individuals, you can't (without hypocrisy) run into federal
court invoking the Second Amendment....
>Some state constitutions include the right of individuals to keep and
>bear arms; some do not. If 2/3rds of the states want to give up the
>right to make that determination, there is a procedure in place.
But if you take an "original intent" view of the constitution, that's missing
the point: the Second Amendment, as written, when it was written, did NOTHING to
prevent states from regulating ownership of weapons. They had the right to make
that determination - that was the point of the Second Amendment (and the rest of
the Bill of Rights).
Thus, it makes no sense to say that the Second Amendment guarantees everyone's
right to own weapons when at the same time any state could, if it so chose, ban
such ownership. The Second Amendment cannot be read to guarantee anyone's right
to own guns without abandoning an "original intent"-based theory of
constitutional interpretation.
Simon
Frank Berger
> In article <13lg2cf...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Lombard
> <thorste...@vermontel.net> wrote:
>
> : Is it to much to ask... if you agree that the Bill of Rights is a
> : document describing rights of individuals?
>
> The tenth amendment certainly doesn't look like a description of the
> rights of individuals to me. Nor do any of them look to me like
> descriptions of absolute rights. Even if the second amendment guarantees
> the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it gives
> *any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more than
> the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander
> another.
>
Only the most extreme gun advocates would suggest such a thing.
bob.h...@comcast.net
> In <fj9elv01...@drn.newsguy.com> Simon Roberts <s...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <13lg2cf3prms...@corp.supernews.com>, Bob Lombard says...
>
> >>Richard Schultz wrote:
> >>>In article <o7WdnY_IG6AyE8ranZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@comcast.com>, Bob Harper
>
> >>> : Not that I expect it to make the slightest difference to you, but the
> >>> : words 'well-regulated militia' are explicated here
> >>> :
> >>> :http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
> >>> :
> >>> : in a manner which seems quite in tune with the Founders' intentions, but
> >>> : quite out of tune with your view of the matter.
>
> >>> Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their attempts
> >>> to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
> >>> that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
> >>> organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
> >>> was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
>
> >>> : I'd be quite satisfied if you'd agree that there are two sides to the
> >>> : question, and that reasonable men can take either reasonably. Is that
> >>> : too much to ask?
>
> >>> I don't know. Is it too much to ask that there are two sides to the
> >>> question of whether slavery was necessarily a bad thing?
>
> >>> -----
> >>Is it to much to ask... if you agree that the Bill of Rights is a
> >>document describing rights of individuals?
> >Just in case 547 people haven't already said this: no, it isn't. It's a
> >document placing limits on the power of the federal government.
>
> Well, yes, but by doing so it confers (residual) rights on the individuals
> and the states.
A major quibble: the Constitution does *not* grant rights to
individuals or states. Those rights were pre-existing. It grants
*limited* rights to the Federal government for sufficient cause.
Nothing could be further from the mind of the Founders than the notion
that the Federal government was the grantor of the rights enumerated
in the Bill of Rights.
Bob Harper
> And since the B of R has (as I understand it) generally
> been extended to states, it in effect lays out rights of individuals.
> Subject, of course, to reasonable interpretation and adjudication
> when they conflict.
>
> --
> Jim
> New York, NY
> (Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)http://www.panix.com/~kahn- Hide quoted text -
bob.h...@comcast.net
Hear, hear.
Bob Harper
Frank Berger
> In article <13lg74e...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> : "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> : news:fj8mb2$1an$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>
> :> Well, I did find the conniptions through which they go in their
> attempts
> :> to divorce the first clause from the second to be quite amusing -- even
> :> that site agrees taht a "well-regulated militia" means one that is
> :> organized and trained, and that the original intent of the amendment
> :> was to ensure the existence of such a militia.
>
> : Which says nothing about who owns the guns.
>
> Am I to take your remark as agreement with me that the second amendment
> does not necessarily guarantee any given individual to own any particular
> arm at any time that he desires? Or are you just engaging in your usual
> skill at missing the point?
Ignoring the unncessary insult......yes. Has anyone in this thread said
anything to imply otherwise?
Frank Berger
> In article <13lg6ug...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
> : "Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
> : news:fj7vse$lar$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
>
> : Which of the current Supreme Court justices are not constitutional
> scholars?
>
> Can you list any pieces of constitutional scholarship published by
> Clarence Thomas? Or John Roberts?
>
> :>
> :> Have you taken a poll lately?
> :
> : I don't take polls. I read and form opinions from what I read.
>
> In other words, your claim that your opinion agrees with that of the
> has no actual basis in fact.
>
I have said nothing about my own opinion about gun control, actually. You
may, at your own risk, infer it from my decision to offer an explanation of
the "other side" (that is, from yours), but my own opinion isn't the point.
My reference above to forming my "opinion" from what I read was in reference
to how I concluded that most constitutional experts would hold opposite to
you, not to how I form my opinion on gun control itself. That should have
been clear since my statement was in response to your question about my
taking a poll.
James Kahn
>On Dec 6, 10:52 am, k...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) wrote:
>>
>> Well, yes, but by doing so it confers (residual) rights on the individuals
>> and the states.
>A major quibble: the Constitution does *not* grant rights to
>individuals or states. Those rights were pre-existing. It grants
>*limited* rights to the Federal government for sufficient cause.
>Nothing could be further from the mind of the Founders than the notion
>that the Federal government was the grantor of the rights enumerated
>in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, I was sloppy in my language. By "confer" I meant
leaving them in the hands of individuals (and in this case, the states).
That's what "residual" was supposed to allude to. Anything not
granted to the government still resides with individuals and states.
They clearly did understand this implication (and made it explicit in
the 9th and 10th amendments).
Though, come to think of it, if the constitution didn't enumerate rights,
why does the ninth amendment refer to "the enumeration ... of certain rights"?
Presumably because they recognized that by limiting the government they
were implicitly enumerating (ok, not granting) rights to "the people."
Matthew Silverstein
> It is highly illogical "to tie the meaning of the Second Amendment (etc.)
> to the intentions of those who" *didn't* write it.
Really? Even today's die-hard originalists have abandoned the claim that
the meaning of the Constitution should be sought in original intent.
Instead they look to the original understanding (perhaps because it is the
ratifiers, not the framers, that matter).
Matty
Simon Roberts
bob.h...@comcast.net says...
I'm not sure what, exactly, you're agreeing with. Is it your view that the
Second Amendment allows a state to outlaw individual ownership of weapons?
Simon
Simon Roberts
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Wayne_Reimer?= says...
>Just from reading the bit available at amazon.com, it looks like this
>book published last year is what everyone arguing about this issue
>needs to read, on both sides.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/36bgpo
Yes; sounds interesting. Presumably this is a summary of sorts of (some of) his
argument:
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/22.1/comment_cornell.html
Simon
Bob Harper
understanding that in speaking of 'the people' the reference is to
individuals, To answer your question directly, no. The doctrine of
incorporation would seem to bind states to an 'individual right'
interpretation, should one be forthcoming.
Bob Harper
Bob Lombard
re Simon's link:
The author's conception of the purpose of the 2nd amendment
(conception garnered from analysis of his references) matches mine -
except that the author seems unduly influenced by the word games used
by modern antagonists in the debate.
One should keep in mind that the former colonies each considered
themselves to be sovereign states. The 'perfect union' was to reduce
that sovereignty only to the extent necessary to permit concerted
action and interaction to the parties' mutual benefit (loosely stated,
but this is not a seminar). The 2nd amendment, like all the rest of
the Bill of Rights, was not intended to infringe on state sovereignty,
but rather to restrict *federal* powers.
Under the federal Constitution, the US government cannot infringe on
an individual citizen's right to *keep* and bear arms, because that
would restrict the states' ability to maintain militias.
The hard-core "gun control" organizations know all this, as do their
opponents; that is why the hotspots in the conflict are at state
level, and at local level in states whose own constitutions do not
protect individual rights.
bl
bpnjensen
> In article <13le86lpnblg...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger <frank.d.ber...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> :> It means that the military can have guns to protect everybody else
> :> from foreign unfriendlies
>
> : No, this is is want you *want* it to mean. What it actually means is a
> : matter for constitutional scholars,
>
> Stop me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the opening
> words of the U.S. Constitution are "We, the People. . ." not "We, the
> Constitutional Scholars." For that matter, since when have constitutional
> scholars determined the meaning of the constitution (as opposed to, say,
> the U.S. Supreme Court, most of whose members are chosen for their politics,
> not their scholarship).
>
>
> Have you taken a poll lately? And what do these constitutional scholars
> of yours think the framers were thinking when they included the clause
> about "A Well-regulated militia"? If the intent was to allow individuals
> to own guns, why not come out and say so?
It strikes me, Richard, that the original framers understood that,
without personal firearms available on a normal basis, a well-
regulated militia at the State level may not be possible. Thus, they
note that in order to maintain such a militia, the *people* must be
have the right to carry a firearm. They do not say that *people* may
only have guns so that a militia may be maintained, nor do they say
that the guns may only be carried in furtherance of the purposes of
the militia, but that their right to bear arsm may not be infringed.
In summation, it means that, whether a militia has been gathered or
not, the *people* need to be able to bear arms.
If this isn't satisfactory, the the Constitution must be amended.
Non-gun-owner and on the liberal side of center,
Bruce Jensen
Bob Harper
Well put.
Non-gun-owner on the conservative side of center,
Bob Harper
Simon Roberts
Then you agree with me, it seems!
Simon
Simon Roberts
bpnjensen says...
>It strikes me, Richard, that the original framers understood that,
>without personal firearms available on a normal basis, a well-
>regulated militia at the State level may not be possible. Thus, they
>note that in order to maintain such a militia, the *people* must be
>have the right to carry a firearm. They do not say that *people* may
>only have guns so that a militia may be maintained, nor do they say
>that the guns may only be carried in furtherance of the purposes of
>the militia, but that their right to bear arsm may not be infringed.
>
>In summation, it means that, whether a militia has been gathered or
>not, the *people* need to be able to bear arms.
That's one reasonable interpretation of the text of the amendment (though if
they thought that everyone "must have" that right, they would have had to
prevent the states from denying it, not just the federal government).
What's striking, however, is that this is the only amendment which expressly
sets forth what looks like the rationale for the right in question (the 4th
Amendment more-or-less does, but not in quite the same way). That being so,
it's unsurprising that some interpreters think that opening phrase should be
seen as having a substantial influence on the definition of the right involved.
(Imagine what a difference it would have made if the portion of the First
Amendment dealing with speech/press had begun with a phrase such as: "The free
exchange of political ideas being crucial to the success of the republic...")
Simon
Bob Harper
ownership should the SCOTUS uphold the District Court's ruling, then yes.
Bob Harper (who hopes for clarity in the decision, but expects another
Anthony Kennedy attempt to have it both ways in a 5-4 decision)
Bob Lombard
>>
> If you mean that a state would be forbidden to outlaw individual
> ownership should the SCOTUS uphold the District Court's ruling, then yes.
>
> Bob Harper (who hopes for clarity in the decision, but expects another
> Anthony Kennedy attempt to have it both ways in a 5-4 decision)
------------
This "doctrine of incorporation" you refer to should more correctly be
named the 'doctrine of usurpation of the rights of states'. In a
world ruled by ethical concepts rather than power, that usurpation
would automatically give states the right to secede from the Union.
bl
Bob Harper
I don't disagree in principle, but given that politics is the art of the
possible, I think we're going to have to live with it, all the while
hoping for better judges (we need one more, you know:)
Bob Harper
Richard Schultz
:> The tenth amendment certainly doesn't look like a description of the
:> rights of individuals to me. Nor do any of them look to me like
:> descriptions of absolute rights. Even if the second amendment guarantees
:> the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it gives
:> *any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more than
:> the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander
:> another.
: Only the most extreme gun advocates would suggest such a thing.
The "most extreme gun advocates" being a category that includes the
NRA, I suppose.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Frank Berger
> In article <13lgsv8...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger
> <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> :> The tenth amendment certainly doesn't look like a description of the
> :> rights of individuals to me. Nor do any of them look to me like
> :> descriptions of absolute rights. Even if the second amendment
> guarantees
> :> the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it
> gives
> :> *any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more
> than
> :> the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander
> :> another.
>
> : Only the most extreme gun advocates would suggest such a thing.
>
> The "most extreme gun advocates" being a category that includes the
> NRA, I suppose.
>
Why not do some research and find out?
Bob Lombard
> In article <13lgsv8...@news.supernews.com>, Frank Berger <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote:
>
> :> The tenth amendment certainly doesn't look like a description of the
> :> rights of individuals to me. Nor do any of them look to me like
> :> descriptions of absolute rights. Even if the second amendment guarantees
> :> the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it gives
> :> *any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more than
> :> the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander
> :> another.
>
> : Only the most extreme gun advocates would suggest such a thing.
>
> The "most extreme gun advocates" being a category that includes the
> NRA, I suppose.
>
> -----
> Richard Schultz
Wrong.
bl
Richard Schultz
:> :> Even if the second amendment guarantees
:> :> the rights of individuals to bear arms, it does not follow that it gives
:> :> *any* individual the right to bear *any* arms at any time, any more than
:> :> the first amendment guarantees the individual the right to slander
:> :> another.
:> : Only the most extreme gun advocates would suggest such a thing.
:> The "most extreme gun advocates" being a category that includes the
:> NRA, I suppose.
: Wrong.
I'm not interested in their PR -- I'm interested in the facts. What gun
control laws has the NRA *not* opposed?