Comments (20) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   dtroutma said, 4 months ago

   I’m really glad Stayskal isn’t paranoid, or ignorant about science, or well capable of thought.

2. 

   Dale Hopson said, 4 months ago

   … but it would be nice if Stayskal was funny or clever!

3. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

   To the righties:

   Do you believe the authors of the 2nd amendment intended it to include revolvers, rifles, automatic weapons, nuclear arms: the judicial activist approach?

   Or do you believe in a strict constructionist approach, which can only mean the second amendment allows for the arms of the day: single-shot muzzle-loaders?

4. 

   Jim Crabtree said, 4 months ago

   Ignorant as a baseline….. hmmmm…..

   Why do they let this guy have a pen? Shouldn’t he be kept away from sharp objects?

   Who would pay him for this?

5. 

   GNWachs said, 4 months ago

   Anthony: Do you believe the authors of the 1st amendment intended it to include criticizing the government, burning flags, curse words- the judicial activist approach?

   Or do you believe in a strict constructionist approach which means you can only say words approved in advance by the government?

6. 

   Gladius said, 4 months ago

   Stict constructionists wouldn’t read muzzle loaders into the document since they weren’t specifically mentioned. Strictly speaking, it says arms. Even if we’re talking period: Where’s my long nine fieldpiece? I need to vaporize my neighbor’s cat.

7. 

   GNWachs said, 4 months ago

   To be accurate re the Heller decision. The court said weapons which would have been carried or used by the male population at the time would be basis. That is transferable to weapons in common use by our present day military. That means handguns, rifles and automatic weapons. No soldier carries a nuclear weapon or a tank on his person.

8. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

   I bet neither of you realize you’re applying judicial activism by adding your interpretations to what is written.

   There’s no way that the writers could have had anything in mind other than the arms they knew about. It doesn’t say “and any future weapons that might be invented”. To apply it to modern arms, to call it “transferable” is adding stuff that isn’t there…the judicial activist approach.

   (By the way, they had nuclear weapons that could be carried by soldiers over 50 years ago. http://tinyurl.com/5twto )

9. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

   Wachs, I think you have it backwards regarding the first amendment and speech.

   The literal text says “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”

   Thus a strict reading would mean they couldn’t prohibit the speech you listed as judicial activism.

   What you’re calling strict constructionism is the exact opposite of what the 1st says, so it isn’t strict constructionism at all.

10. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Gladius, you’re right, it says arms. But unless they were referring to human arms, what other arms that could be carried by a person would there be besides single shot muzzle loaders (and non-powder weapons like swords)?

11. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    “There’s no way that the writers could have had anything in mind other than the arms they knew about. It doesn’t say “and any future weapons that might be invented”. To apply it to modern arms, to call it “transferable” is adding stuff that isn’t there…the judicial activist approach.”

    Anthony: Are you saying Freedom of the Press doesn’t cover the internet, blogs, twitter etc all the modern development in the press because they weren’t around in 1789?

12. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    Anthony: I was quoting you re judicial activism and strict constructionism- your words not mine.

    Although it is fun to debate we must actually go to the law. Reread Heller. I was paraphrasing Scalia re what arms may be carried today. The law is now what he said and what he said citizens may carry any weapons that are routinely carried by members of the modern armed forces. We may carry all the modern weapons equivalent to all the weapons in existence in 1789.

13. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Wachs: “I was quoting you re judicial activism and strict constructionism- your words not mine.”

    Yes, but I still think you got it backwards with your example.

    I’m not debating what the law is today; I agree with you there. I’m just saying that the interpretation to get to it is the same “judicial activism” so often decried by the right.

    My own opinion is that “judicial activism” is a silly term, and generally only means that an interpretation was made that someone didn’t agree with. I like to view the Constitution as a living document that can be applied to modern times not just by amendments, but by interpreting for modern situations.

    Thus, to answer your Freedom of the Press question, I would say that a strict constructionist would have to say they weren’t covered, but a more rational interpretation, treating the Constitution as a “living document”, would say they are.

14. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    I don’t know if this will reach you but if not I may try again in another day’s debates.

    I am fortunately very friendly with the man behind the Heller case. In one of our luncheons I asked him about the very nebulous term judicial activism.

    He wrote an article for the New Republic where he uses the terms Judicial Engagement and Judicial Abdication.

    Liberals say in every instance where the judiciary does not defer to the will of the legislature it is an instance of judicial activism. Strict constructionists say whenever the legislature passes a law in conflict with the Constitution they must declare it unconstitutional. They further say when judges institute their own views over that of the legislature then that is judicial activism.

    Example: Justice Stevens voted to nullify the death penalty. A very reasonable view for a legislator or a governor but certainly not a Supreme Court Justice. Not only is capital punishment not prohibited in the US Constitution but it is expressly described. That is what we call judicial activism.

    If NY State passed a law banning the practice of Islam that would be unconstitutional and must be overthrown by the courts but liberals would call that an example of conservative judicial activism. Two such totally different actions cannot have the same definition.

    If the courts did not throw out banning of Islam that would be judicial abdication.

    From the article “In contrast, activism that renders legal judgments based on the judge’s public policy preferences should be roundly condemned. Results-oriented jurisprudence, based on subjective value judgments, may be proper for a legislator, but not for a judge. A judge’s role is to apply the law, not impose policy preferences.”

15. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Nice summary.

    I’m not sure I agree with your fourth paragraph. Your definition of strict constructionism doesn’t match what I’ve seen…indeed, it seems something that everyone would agree with. I certainly disagree that the overturning of the Islam law would warrant the label of judicial activism…it’s actually requires only a narrow reading of the first amendment. (Well, I guess you could call it judicial activism that most of the Bill of Rights is now applied to the state governments).

    I see strict constructionism as meaning taking a very narrow and literal view of the black-letter law. If the 2nd amendment says “arms”, then the narrowest view would be that it refers to single-shot muzzle-loading pistols and rifles (if we accept that “bear” means “carry”, it rules out cannons). Only by broadening the view to mean any type of arms, can it by applied to today’s weapons. And that broader view is the activism, because it’s expanding the meaning to change with the times.

    That’s why I get irritated when I hear charges of “judicial activism” (that mostly seem to come from the right), as they usually mean nothing more than “I don’t like the decision”. Without judicial activism we wouldn’t have innocent unless proven guilty, right to privacy, and a 2nd amendment that allows (some) modern weapons.

    As an aside, although capital crimes are mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn’t allow or prohibit capital punishment (although one could argue the 8th prohibits it as “cruel”). I would argue that the Constitution doesn’t expressly give that power to the federal government, so it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not any of the other powers require it.

16. 

    GNWachs said, 4 months ago

    Anthony:
    Leaving for the theater in 2 minutes. Will continue this later. Thanks for the rational articulate response.

    Who is the avatar?

17. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Yen Hoang, model (Playboy and otherwise) and now pharmacy student.

    Googleable.

18. 

    senorbullwinkle said, 4 months ago

    Oh, anthony, you broke my heart. all this time I thought that was you.tonie. Dont tell me your a dude or i’ll cry. no no no NO !

19. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 4 months ago

    Sorry. I just figured this picture would be nicer to look at than one of me…

20. 

    senorbullwinkle said, 4 months ago

    OH GREAT, something else I have to tell my Psychiatrist.