guns

[Calandale]

Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.

That's because you're used to the context.

The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).


Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.

[odeon]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?

[Jack]

Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.

That's because you're used to the context.

The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).


Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.

It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.

[Jack]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?

Were you expecting either of us to get somewhere? If you answer my previous question, then I'll look up the US national averages for gun homicides per day and multiply that by the number of days we've been doing this. It was my attempt to get you to discuss something different. Have in the past noticed you don't outright say gun ban, and can get defensive when others imply you mean gun ban. Thinking this is only the third time extensively discussing guns here, so not certain I'm repeating myself. Have probably brought up the constitution in the context of gun discussions, stating it's irrelevant to imposing restrictions on the grounds of owner vs operator, but can't recall participating in a gun discussion which the constitution is the context.

[Calandale]

Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.

That's because you're used to the context.

The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).


Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.

It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.

The point is that the decision was such a radical departure from the courts of the time.

Especially once it comes to not just balancing competing rights and laws, but actually
overturning laws enacted by Congress. As far as I know, this was an absolute first
in the world - a decision essentially crafted by a single man's seizure of an un-enumerated
power, the extent of which is truly astounding, even for that turbulent time.

[Jack]

Not sure if misunderstanding you or merely being a literalist. Can't imagine how anyone could look at article three and say there's no indication such power was desired for the courts.

That's because you're used to the context.

The idea of overturning laws was new. Obviously, the Constitution wouldn't mean anything
without some body enforcing it, but there is no explicit power to do so enumerated (and
there IS something in the document about where such powers devolve).


Marshall's action was seen as radical at the time. THAT should be enough to understand
that most people weren't reading it that way.

It may not be so much used to the context, as much as personal bias of approval, seeing it as constituently correct, just, necessary, and a power that isn't viewed as abused. The constitution explicitly states the supreme court has judicial power over all legal cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states, so it seems odd to say the founders didn't desire the supreme court to have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of congressional acts. The decision wasn't liked but that could have been about pride; it was also accepted and that should be enough to understand most people did read it that way.

The point is that the decision was such a radical departure from the courts of the time.

Especially once it comes to not just balancing competing rights and laws, but actually
overturning laws enacted by Congress. As far as I know, this was an absolute first
in the world - a decision essentially crafted by a single man's seizure of an un-enumerated
power, the extent of which is truly astounding, even for that turbulent time.

The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law. There's no denying it was a monumental precedent; it was brilliant. Though the brilliance wasn't the act; it was the circumstances. The first instance of the supreme court exerting its power over the government was to deny power granted to the supreme court. There's a level of genius to it to make it sly, and yet a level of honor to make it awe inspiring. Even if it hadn't happened, it seems a precedent that would have been set eventually; still monumental yet not quite so extraordinary.

[Calandale]

The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law.

I think what seems 'obvious' today is only so because it's known. There's absolutely no evidence
that I'm aware of that anyone foresaw this usage.

You have to remember, the Bill of Rights was something of an afterthought to the Constitution
itself. And that's where most of the court decisions found root. Without it, the federal govt would
seem a supreme body. With it (and the 10th amendment most particularly), there were inevitable
conflicts between what were seen as sovereign bodies. Conflicts that would lead to war, if not for
the step.


The funny thing is that the ACW largely destroyed that. By not resolving the secession crisis in the
framework of the court (or by negotiation), the fragile structure was upended.

[odeon]

Yes, it is very clear once you have made up your mind about what it means.

I know what it means because I know what the supreme court says it means. I also know they could later say it means something else, and I'll still know it means what they say it means.

If it needs a bunch of politically appointed judges to be interpreted, it's not just not clear, it's dangerous.

The supreme court is exactly what's needed when states individually impose laws on the people which deny their constitutional rights, or prosecute people for things they're free to do. The US potentially could have very strict national gun laws, and the fact it doesn't has nothing to do with the second amendment or the supreme court's current interpretation of what it means.

A constitutional "right" that is anything but clear but yet is being used as an important symbol for one point of view when it's obvious it could be used to argue the merits of an opposing one's.

We'll have to disagree on this one.

Not trying to get you to agree, and agreeing to disagree only ends the conversation; then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

But there isn't. We're just repeating the same stuff over and over again, getting nowhere while people are being shot over there. How many have lost their lives while we've been doing this?

Were you expecting either of us to get somewhere? If you answer my previous question, then I'll look up the US national averages for gun homicides per day and multiply that by the number of days we've been doing this. It was my attempt to get you to discuss something different. Have in the past noticed you don't outright say gun ban, and can get defensive when others imply you mean gun ban. Thinking this is only the third time extensively discussing guns here, so not certain I'm repeating myself. Have probably brought up the constitution in the context of gun discussions, stating it's irrelevant to imposing restrictions on the grounds of owner vs operator, but can't recall participating in a gun discussion which the constitution is the context.

It was a rhetorical question. It's, I guess, as good an illustration of the problem as anything else, but it's just that. An illustration.

As for my opinions on an outright ban, I'm not sure. A ban would fix a lot of your problems but also create others.

[odeon]

Oh, and no, I wasn't really expecting us to get anywhere, no.

[Jack]

The wording of the constitution makes me think it was not only intended but also foreseen, that congress could one day enact unconstitutional law.

I think what seems 'obvious' today is only so because it's known. There's absolutely no evidence
that I'm aware of that anyone foresaw this usage.

You have to remember, the Bill of Rights was something of an afterthought to the Constitution
itself. And that's where most of the court decisions found root. Without it, the federal govt would
seem a supreme body. With it (and the 10th amendment most particularly), there were inevitable
conflicts between what were seen as sovereign bodies. Conflicts that would lead to war, if not for
the step.


The funny thing is that the ACW largely destroyed that. By not resolving the secession crisis in the
framework of the court (or by negotiation), the fragile structure was upended.

The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought. Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States? There are a number of modern constitutional cases which the founders could have never possibly foreseen, but it doesn't make sense this is one of them. Foreseen may not even be the best term, but it's logical it was considered. Even from a rudimentary understanding of government structure, what's obvious is congress has the power to enact unconstitutional laws. Yes, it's obvious today the powers of the three branches create a system of checks and balances for central government, but it's difficult to understand the viewpoint this balance is evolutionary rather than intelligent design.  Is that even what you're saying or is it more of an agnostic stance, based on it's impossible to know what they were thinking?

[Calandale]

The evidence is article three, and the articles of confederation weren't an afterthought.

WTF? Article three doesn't imply anything of the sort. It sets up a federal judiciary. One presumably
based upon the English equivalent, with no right to invalidate laws of parliament, regardless
of any common-law (the constitution as such of the brits) precedents.

Why grant judicial power over the laws of the United States without considering judicial power would be exerted over the laws of the United States?

 It's NOT "over the laws".
The article very clearly states that it is UNDER the laws that Congress may enact.

As to the Articles of Confederation themselves, they didn't even establish a judiciary.
However, I'll grant you that it appears that the judicial act of 1789 - and its after-affects -
show that some of the founders were definitely thinking more in this direction. A bit
of learning for me that definitely made this a worthwhile engagement.

*tips hat*

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

You wanna know the last time I heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means?

It's a trick question. I've never heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means. Or any other constitution for that matter. Apart from the US constitution, of course. You guys have been arguing about what it really means for a couple of hundred years now and you still can't agree. Let me spell it out for you: if you spend more than 200 years arguing about what something really means, it isn't all that clear.

I'm glad that I live in a country where people were horrified by mass killings, one in particular (Port Arthur in 1996) and demanded that something be done. So we changed the law so you could still have guns that were good for hunting, but you couldn't have guns that were good for slaughtering lots of people.

We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.

And, despite significant immigration from some pretty murderous parts of the world, we haven't had a single mass shooting since then and our murder rate has continued to fall and it is a fraction of the murder rate in the US.

[odeon]

You wanna know the last time I heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means?

It's a trick question. I've never heard an argument about what some part of the Australian constitution really means. Or any other constitution for that matter. Apart from the US constitution, of course. You guys have been arguing about what it really means for a couple of hundred years now and you still can't agree. Let me spell it out for you: if you spend more than 200 years arguing about what something really means, it isn't all that clear.

I'm glad that I live in a country where people were horrified by mass killings, one in particular (Port Arthur in 1996) and demanded that something be done. So we changed the law so you could still have guns that were good for hunting, but you couldn't have guns that were good for slaughtering lots of people.

We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.

And, despite significant immigration from some pretty murderous parts of the world, we haven't had a single mass shooting since then and our murder rate has continued to fall and it is a fraction of the murder rate in the US.

This.

Now, I realise there are people who like guns without feeling they need to kill somebody. I'm assuming all sorts of things are appealing about guns, most of which have little to do with killing another human being. I don't see it but then, most people don't understand my interests either.

But.

I'm thinking Dolby processors did not ever kill anyone. Maim, maybe, but not kill. They don't weigh enough to kill when dropped on people's heads. If they had, en masse, I'd probably understand there would have to be restrictions in place. I know I'd think twice before buying another one.

But this never happens when it comes to guns, even though we're talking about something that was designed for the purpose. To kill people. There have been court cases declaring that the blind people of Iowa have the right to a weapon for chrisskes, but people are not stopping to consider if all this is reasonable in the first place.

And here we are, debating the phrasing of something written down in the 18th fucking century.

[Calandale]

We didn't disappear up our own arses and buy more guns and argue over what someone really meant by some ambiguous piece of text written more than 200 years ago.

Aw shucks. Your gun manufacturers just were never that big a thing.

I mean, seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Firearm_manufacturers_of_Australia

[Jack]

As for my opinions on an outright ban, I'm not sure. A ban would fix a lot of your problems but also create others.

My views on a ban don't involve weighing pros and cons; it's more a matter of likelihood and taking the path of least resistance. There's only two ways it can happen, quickly like ripping off a bandaid, or slowly chipping away at it. The bandaid scenario doesn't doesn't seem anything more than a daydream due to the complexity of amending the constitution. The problem with chipping away is it requires support of the federal government. Personally support strict national gun control laws, but that's true of most of the population. That doesn't matter though, because I also see no point in new laws when the federal government doesn't enforce the ones we already have.