So... What about The Constitution?

I was outside having a smoke when it dawned on me that I didn't have a copy of The Constitution in my house.

So I downloaded a copy.

Now I'm going to need help re-interpreting it, it's been a while (civics class).

Are there any good sources for Constitutional law?

I tried this link: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Legal+Interpret...s+Constitution

I suspect we're close to the point where downloading a copy of the Constitution will brand you as a "Right Wing Extremist," and get you flagged as a potential terrorist.

That being said, interpretation of the Constitution is at the whim of whatever the most recent SCOTUS decision is. I expect it's going to change quite a bit once BHO picks the next 2 or 3 justices.

the Constitution was not written to be "interpreted". it is to be FOLLOWED. "interpreting" the Constitution is what got us in this mess

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seaninmich

the Constitution was not written to be "interpreted". it is to be FOLLOWED. "interpreting" the Constitution is what got us in this mess

---

Of course I agree with you, but that's not how it's been playing out the last several decades.

I do think some amount of interpretation is necessary, applying concepts written 200 years ago to situations that couldn't be imagined then requires it. That doesn't, however, justify the judicial activism we've seen in my lifetime.

I don't think it's going anywhere, though, so the best we can hope for is "like minded interpreters," which we're at least 4 years away from being able to pick, sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpd3672

I do think some amount of interpretation is necessary, applying concepts written 200 years ago to situations that couldn't be imagined then requires it.

.

---

So then you have no problem agreeing that there is no way the founders would have ever allowed citizens to own semi automatic weapons and "assault rifles" and high capacity firearms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seaninmich

So then you have no problem agreeing that there is no way the founders would have ever allowed citizens to own semi automatic weapons and "assault rifles" and high capacity firearms?

---

No, actually the opposite. The FF had no problem with citizens owning the exact same weapons the military used. As a matter of fact, the Revolutionary War was fought with quite a few privately owned guns.

I think there is a point where some things should be "military only," if for no other reason than national security...I don't want anyone with a checkbook to have access to our classified weapons; tanks, fighter jets, etc. There's too much danger of our enemies "catching up" on the cheap, as China has already proven more than willing (and able) to do.

Small arms, though; anything that's mechanical in nature, that isn't made using classified technology, should be accessible to anyone, within reason...not sure how I feel about some of the bigger stuff, explosives and the like. Legally, I think they fall within the spirit of the Constitution, but practically, the idea troubles me. I do agree, however, with the limitations against felons or people with serious mental conditions legally owning guns...something that's not directly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, but is a good "interpretation" of its intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpd3672

No, actually the opposite. The FF had no problem with citizens owning the exact same weapons the military used. As a matter of fact, the Revolutionary War was fought with quite a few privately owned guns.

I think there is a point where some things should be "military only," if for no other reason than national security...I don't want anyone with a checkbook to have access to our classified weapons; tanks, fighter jets, etc. There's too much danger of our enemies "catching up" on the cheap, as China has already proven more than willing (and able) to do.

Small arms, though; anything that's mechanical in nature, that isn't made using classified technology, should be accessible to anyone, within reason...not sure how I feel about some of the bigger stuff, explosives and the like. Legally, I think they fall within the spirit of the Constitution, but practically, the idea troubles me. I do agree, however, with the limitations against felons or people with serious mental conditions legally owning guns...something that's not directly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, but is a good "interpretation" of its intent.

---

If you believe this there is a simple, very simple way to make that happen, AMMEND the darn Constitution. The way the Constitution is written right now I may own a nuclear weapon. The Constitution says I may own any arm I may want and my concealed carry is that I was born.

This nonsense about applying "practical" application to the Constitution is just that. The Founding Fathers were pure genius, they were so perfect that they gave us the means to modify the Constitution if "something came up". We have become too lazy to use the means the Founders gave us because it is not politically expedient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timshufflin

If you believe this there is a simple, very simple way to make that happen, AMMEND the darn Constitution. The way the Constitution is written right now I may own a nuclear weapon. The Constitution says I may own any arm I may want and my concealed carry is that I was born.

This nonsense about applying "practical" application to the Constitution is just that. The Founding Fathers were pure genius, they were so perfect that they gave us the means to modify the Constitution if "something came up". We have become too lazy to use the means the Founders gave us because it is not politically expedient.

---

I agree that the way it's written is very simple, and my take on it is the same as yours...anything up to, and including, nuclear weapons, is pretty much Constitutionally kosher.

That being said, again, I'm not sure that it's a good idea, and I think the idea of adding amendments to cover each and every scenario that pops up is cumbersome. I think it's ok for the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, as long as they keep the intent of the FF pure. The problem we have is judicial activism, justices who use their position as a way to legislate from the bench.

The only remedy, as I see it, is to only appoint justices who interpret the Constitution strictly and narrowly, which unfortunately has not happened for the past 50 years or more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dpd3672

I agree that the way it's written is very simple, and my take on it is the same as yours...anything up to, and including, nuclear weapons, is pretty much Constitutionally kosher.

That being said, again, I'm not sure that it's a good idea, and I think the idea of adding amendments to cover each and every scenario that pops up is cumbersome. I think it's ok for the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution, as long as they keep the intent of the FF pure. The problem we have is judicial activism, justices who use their position as a way to legislate from the bench.

The only remedy, as I see it, is to only appoint justices who interpret the Constitution strictly and narrowly, which unfortunately has not happened for the past 50 years or more.

---

It is Constitutionally cumbersome and if you think it is it is because the Founders wanted it this way. The Founders wanted us to stick to the damn law, it's pretty simple. It is also not hard to amend the the 2nd amendment so that it can be interpreted how you wish. All that would need be said is;

28th Amendment, Congress may pass any law prohibiting arms not classified as small arms.

See now, it's done. You would have a classification table which defines small arms and off you go, oh, I forgot, people will later try and "interpret" what we really meant by "small arms". You can NEVER leave ANY part of the Constitution up to interpretation. Not ever, those in power are all to happy to interpret your life away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timshufflin

It is Constitutionally cumbersome and if you think it is it is because the Founders wanted it this way. The Founders wanted us to stick to the damn law, it's pretty simple. It is also not hard to amend the the 2nd amendment so that it can be interpreted how you wish. All that would need be said is;

28th Amendment, Congress may pass any law prohibiting arms not classified as small arms.

See now, it's done. You would have a classification table which defines small arms and off you go, oh, I forgot, people will later try and "interpret" what we really meant by "small arms". You can NEVER leave ANY part of the Constitution up to interpretation. Not ever, those in power are all to happy to interpret your life away.

---

That's my point, though...your 28th Amendment is itself subject to interpretation...it'd be easy, in the hypothetical 29th Amendment to define "small arms" as "any single shot gun in .22LR caliber" and "poof," there goes the 2nd Amendment, for all intents and purposes.

I think it's best to simply appoint wise, conservative justices that aren't trying to further an agenda with every decision they make. Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with, for at least 4 more years, which will probably be at least 2, maybe 3 judges.