I.P. Check in aisle 6
Dude, knock that off...you scared him away...and just when he was closing on 50
I.P. Check in aisle 6
Article 5 convention is a horrible idea. I'd rather have a constitution written by the founders than the current state legislatures.
We're on a glideslope towards a bad place, but historically, that trajectory doesn't change without a fall.
That doesn't mean a whole lot. In the case where there's civil war first and "alteration" (more realistically, a complete rewrite) of the Constitution after, the rules for that alteration will be made up on the spot. Making up rules on the spot is the equivalent of not starting off with any rules in the first place. The victors can choose to use the existing Article V rules, of course, but that is a choice. A rule which is optional is not really a rule, now is it?
Well, yes, that much is clear, and I'm certainly not arguing otherwise. However, an Article V Convention would logically occur under the context where specific problems with the Constitution have been identified and the states are determined to address them. A Constitutional Convention occurs in the context where the rule of law has disappeared completely and the victors want to craft a set of rules for governing the country.
If the latter yields something anything close to the same as the former, it will only be through a massive stroke of luck.
In the aftermath of a civil war, what makes you think there will be anything called "states"? The victors might well decide to eliminate the notion of distributed government entirely, seeing how it's primarily (some of) the states that are forcing a large portion of the issues in the first place.
Yeah. It has to be tried. To refuse to try an available peaceful option before opening the ammo box is an unforgivable dereliction of duty, and amounts to a decision to kill people before there's no other choice.
Dude, knock that off...you scared him away...and just when he was closing on 50
What if a simple majority of the governed consented that my 2A rights are a relic of the past and that it was necessary to infringe upon those rights for the good of the collective?
What if a simple majority of the governed consented that because my speech was deemed inflammatory that I needed to be segregated from society? What if they deemed that I needed to be put in a camp with like minded sub human individuals?
That's exactly why the system needs to change, because if that way of governing is being taught to my generation then the ruling class has NO limitations. And, that is exactly how Maryland general assembly behaves and much of the federal body.
That is exactly what I'm advocating for and the discussion is about! Amending the Constitution through Article V to combat judicial activism.
"Judicial activism" is meaningless beyond rousing a certain segment of the population to political action (see prior post about voting rates...). You know what was an activist decision? Brown v. Board of Education. Was that wrongly decided? You know what else was activist? Heller. (1) It completely flipped all previous precedent on the central question and (2) it overturned a law passed by a legislative body. What could be more activist than that? But somehow, I'm guessing that's not an activist decision anyone here wants to see undone...
As a lawyer and professor of law, yes, it matters a lot. The Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed, not appeals to higher authority. The former is fundamentally legitimate; the latter is not.
You need to keep in mind that the Constitution is a living document. In essence, it can be changed. If a vast majority of the people are against firearm ownership, an Amendment could be passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
We elect the morons that pass the laws and appoint the judges. We can also change the Constitution should we like. You just have to have enough people pushing for the change.
Doubt we will see the 2nd Amendment going away anytime soon though. They are whittling away at it little by little so the sheep feel safer.
Why does it take you so long to agree with me
Miller court rules that SBS have no protections because they are not in use by the military
Heller rules weapons in common use (handguns) are protected.
Mcdonald applies due process incorporation to the states
Kolbe out of the 4th circuit then says the AR15 has military purposes regardless of being in common use is not protected or given any consideration
So not for military uses = not protected when talking about SBS
Then if it is for military purposes = not protected when talking about the AR15
But a handgun for self defense protected
"Judicial activism" is meaningless beyond rousing a certain segment of the population to political action (see prior post about voting rates...). You know what was an activist decision? Brown v. Board of Education. Was that wrongly decided? You know what else was activist? Heller. (1) It completely flipped all previous precedent on the central question and (2) it overturned a law passed by a legislative body. What could be more activist than that? But somehow, I'm guessing that's not an activist decision anyone here wants to see undone...
[1] But the Constitution, in particular, is the supreme law of the land, and therefore overrides everything, including court precedent that conflicts with it.
[2] Arbitrary interpretive power is unfettered power, the ability to make anything mean whatever one wishes. It is judicial activism to do so. Prior decisions which engaged in judicial activism are rightly overridden by later decisions which are faithful to the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.
[3] There are well-understood techniques for getting at the original intended meaning of historical documents.
[1] With respect to the Supreme Court in particular, Marbury v. Madison respectfully disagrees.
[2] I agree with your first sentence, but "judicial activism" usually just boils down to, "I don't like that decision so I'm going to malign the judges that issued it." Look, I think the majority opinion in the Kolbe en banc is a $#!tshow, but it's not because of "judicial activism" - it's because of poor reasoning, not following precedent, and so forth.
[3] The idea that we can look back with certainty to determine the founders' intent for any given provision of the Constitution is folly.
They were having the same debates about the scope and limits of federal power that we are (still) having today.
The Constitution was a compromise document that kicked the can down the road specifically because they couldn't agree on the details. Madison and Jefferson were as far apart on these questions as are Larry Tribe and Sam Alito today. That original conflict is inherent in the dueling, arguably conflicting mandates of the 9th and 10th Amendments. While many people of various political persuasions try to pretend or the other doesn't exist, they both do, and both must have meaning.
[1] With respect to the Supreme Court in particular, Marbury v. Madison respectfully disagrees.
[2] I agree with your first sentence, but "judicial activism" usually just boils down to, "I don't like that decision so I'm going to malign the judges that issued it." Look, I think the majority opinion in the Kolbe en banc is a $#!tshow, but it's not because of "judicial activism" - it's because of poor reasoning, not following precedent, and so forth.
[3] The idea that we can look back with certainty to determine the founders' intent for any given provision of the Constitution is folly. They were having the same debates about the scope and limits of federal power that we are (still) having today. The Constitution was a compromise document that kicked the can down the road specifically because they couldn't agree on the details. Madison and Jefferson were as far apart on these questions as are Larry Tribe and Sam Alito today. That original conflict is inherent in the dueling, arguably conflicting mandates of the 9th and 10th Amendments. While many people of various political persuasions try to pretend or the other doesn't exist, they both do, and both must have meaning.
Invention time travel.. problem solved.
By the way the more you learn about our founders the less impressed you are likely to be. No 24 x 7 news cycle..Lots of white washing...
And they did Bork up a lot of things..
Anyway I rule out time travel as likely... And proceed from there..
Invention time travel.. problem solved.
By the way the more you learn about our founders the less impressed you are likely to be. No 24 x 7 news cycle..Lots of white washing...
And they did Bork up a lot of things..
Anyway I rule out time travel as likely... And proceed from there..
Exceeding the quality of our current legislatures isn't a very high bar.
On the lighter side, this new concept "Time Crystals" came up in discussion with some of the guys I study engineering and physics with, so time travel might not be completely impossible. It's also above anything I can explain. But, I do have to say the firearms are a little more interesting now.