//HIJACK//
To this day, I have to sing the Preamble to get the words right. When I read the above thread, I started singing in my head...
//HIJACK OFF//
United States & Gun Control discussion.
- Thread starter Diamondback 2/2
- Start date
//HIJACK//
To this day, I have to sing the Preamble to get the words right. When I read the above thread, I started singing in my head...
//HIJACK OFF//
@x SF med, I do argue for strict constitutionalism as it is the only way to limit the federal government, but I have never argued for a static constitution. You seem to like to tweak my posts to suit your personal opinion. So let me spell it out very clearly for you…
The US constitution is a living document, it has the ability to be amended, it purposes is to form and outline the federal government, the powers it holds in each branch of government and the powers it does not. Those powers that the three branches of government DO NOT hold are reserved to the PEOPLE. The Federal government is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, however, just as today and just as the time when the document was drafted, there have always been people who wanted to centralize power in the federal government (i.e. remove the power from the people).
Preamble defined by online dictionary:
pre·am·ble
1.an introductory statement; preface; introduction. Synonyms: opening, beginning; foreword, prologue, prelude. Antonyms: epilogue, appendix, conclusion, afterword, closing.
2.the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: Hischildhoodintheslumswasapreambletoalifeofcrime.
4.( initialcapitalletter) the introductory statement of the U.S.constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preamble
So yeah, as I said before, it’s and intro to the constitution. Again, it’s a plain English thing…
I do not want people to follow me, nor do I want people to take my word for anything. I would like people too actually: 1) research the actual constitution, 2) the history of it, and 3) understand it.
The problem as I see it is that a lot of people claim the same thing as you, the constitution is an old document from a different world, and it does not support the problems of today. I completely disagree. The document can be amended by a 2/3rds majority of the states; it can be modified to allow more and less power to the federal government, and just because the people (i.e. the states) do not want to change it, doesn’t mean the federal government has the authority to circumvent the document or assert power where they do not possess power.
^^^^^This right here is silly and unnecessary.
@pardus, I do believe the states have the right to regulate firearms within their state borders to some level. An example would be passing a law requiring anyone who carries a firearm to keep it concealed or for them to be licensed, or even the type of weapon they may carry. However, I do not believe they restrict the ability for a state resident and non resident to travel with a firearm, regardless of type, etc. So take NY, they can restrict Newyorkers, but if I am traveling through NY, they have no athourity to restrict me, as I am traveling with my property, and it would be unreasonable for someone to give up or loose property in order to travel through NY. That is diving into another issue regarding the right to travel, and although important to this topic, a bit of a side rail.
What most people confuse is attempting to define “the people” and “the state” although the state is a formed government, it is in fact the people as well. So in theory, if the the people, pass laws restricting their own rights, and they are giving powers of governance to the state over protected rights of the people, than it’s very hard to argue that it is not legal for the state to enforce such laws. However, and this is what you are seeing with business and free markets, the people, have the ability to leave X state for Y state, to escape perceived infringement of their personal liberties, and or taxesation without proper representation. Hint’s companies like MAGPUL leaving CO, for TX and WY, or USAA leaving CA for TX, or even people leaving NY and IL to move to more gun friendly states, etc.
The US constitution is a living document, it has the ability to be amended, it purposes is to form and outline the federal government, the powers it holds in each branch of government and the powers it does not. Those powers that the three branches of government DO NOT hold are reserved to the PEOPLE. The Federal government is supposed to be a government of the people and for the people, however, just as today and just as the time when the document was drafted, there have always been people who wanted to centralize power in the federal government (i.e. remove the power from the people).
Preamble defined by online dictionary:
pre·am·ble
1.an introductory statement; preface; introduction. Synonyms: opening, beginning; foreword, prologue, prelude. Antonyms: epilogue, appendix, conclusion, afterword, closing.
2.the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows.
3.a preliminary or introductory fact or circumstance: Hischildhoodintheslumswasapreambletoalifeofcrime.
4.( initialcapitalletter) the introductory statement of the U.S.constitution, setting forth the general principles of American government and beginning with the words, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. …”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/preamble
So yeah, as I said before, it’s and intro to the constitution. Again, it’s a plain English thing…
I do not want people to follow me, nor do I want people to take my word for anything. I would like people too actually: 1) research the actual constitution, 2) the history of it, and 3) understand it.
The problem as I see it is that a lot of people claim the same thing as you, the constitution is an old document from a different world, and it does not support the problems of today. I completely disagree. The document can be amended by a 2/3rds majority of the states; it can be modified to allow more and less power to the federal government, and just because the people (i.e. the states) do not want to change it, doesn’t mean the federal government has the authority to circumvent the document or assert power where they do not possess power.
^^^^^This right here is silly and unnecessary.
@pardus, I do believe the states have the right to regulate firearms within their state borders to some level. An example would be passing a law requiring anyone who carries a firearm to keep it concealed or for them to be licensed, or even the type of weapon they may carry. However, I do not believe they restrict the ability for a state resident and non resident to travel with a firearm, regardless of type, etc. So take NY, they can restrict Newyorkers, but if I am traveling through NY, they have no athourity to restrict me, as I am traveling with my property, and it would be unreasonable for someone to give up or loose property in order to travel through NY. That is diving into another issue regarding the right to travel, and although important to this topic, a bit of a side rail.
What most people confuse is attempting to define “the people” and “the state” although the state is a formed government, it is in fact the people as well. So in theory, if the the people, pass laws restricting their own rights, and they are giving powers of governance to the state over protected rights of the people, than it’s very hard to argue that it is not legal for the state to enforce such laws. However, and this is what you are seeing with business and free markets, the people, have the ability to leave X state for Y state, to escape perceived infringement of their personal liberties, and or taxesation without proper representation. Hint’s companies like MAGPUL leaving CO, for TX and WY, or USAA leaving CA for TX, or even people leaving NY and IL to move to more gun friendly states, etc.
Do you sing it to the tune of "Dancing Queen"?
@JAB - take a look at your definition #4 - and the section that reads: "...setting forth the general principles of American government..." It would behoove you to fully read a definition you are setting out as total fact, when that same definition directly states the differential connotations in a specific case and qualifies them in such away as to give, in the specific case mentioned, a more finely tuned and absolute definition. In this case, based on your own 'research' and a logical fallacy, you have negated your argument by using an argument based on a wrong premise.
I read it dude, however you want to twist it, it is what it is. The preamble is an intro to the constitution and gives zero powers by way of the preamble to the federal government, as you attempted to imply by use of definition in regards to the bill of rights.
It's obvious that the way you are attempting to define meaning or interpret the meaning of the US constitution is not something I agree with. I am not going to try and call you names or attack your intellect over it, we should probably leave it at a disagreement as I have clearly stated my opinions and reasoning many times throughout this thread.
JHD
Member
I don't know if this will help clarify anything or not...
but in my position, I interpret and determine how to implement legislation and regulations for my employer. In doing so, I MUST read and consider the preamble. In the definition of preamble above @JAB, you included "the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows". In determining the letter and spirit or the legislation and implementing regulations, the preamble lays out the intent of the regulation and the why's, which helps determine how to implement the regulations. The SCOTUS applies similar principles when they review cases brought before them, looking at what the regulation says and what was the intent.
So even though the preamble is the introduction, it must be included as part of The Constitution when determining what the intent was by the Founding Fathers.
but in my position, I interpret and determine how to implement legislation and regulations for my employer. In doing so, I MUST read and consider the preamble. In the definition of preamble above @JAB, you included "the introductory part of a statute, deed, or the like, stating the reasons and intent of what follows". In determining the letter and spirit or the legislation and implementing regulations, the preamble lays out the intent of the regulation and the why's, which helps determine how to implement the regulations. The SCOTUS applies similar principles when they review cases brought before them, looking at what the regulation says and what was the intent.
So even though the preamble is the introduction, it must be included as part of The Constitution when determining what the intent was by the Founding Fathers.
Okay, but again, has no application to granting powers, especially in regards to the bill of rights.
I get what you are saying, I'm not sure if you are understanding my point. You can read the preamble and say "oh okay this is why they decided on x-y-z. However, it has zero legal bearing on the powers granted to the government or the rights reserved by the people. You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc.
If you go back a few pages that is how X SF med presented his argument, which is very much IMO an attempt to twist wording with meaning.
Eitherway, the courts have never used the preamble as the sole means to decide constitutionality. Because, regardless how you want to use it, it has no legal standing as a measure of athourity or grant of powers, it is legally nothing more than an introduction to the constitution. Can it be referenced, sure, but can it alone justify congress passing laws for social welfare, or other issues? No.
JHD
Member
In your comment:
"You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc."
If I were interpreting this back in the day to see if the Preamble trumped 2A, I would say "no, it doesn't trump." They work together.
I would be completely comfortable arguing that a well regulated militia goes along with "provide for the common defense." Also, ensuring domestic tranquility goes along with the establishment of the courts and justice system, which is separate from the militia and providing for the common defense and ensuring the blessings of liberty. I don't think they are contradictory at all, but work in tandem. I agree the Preamble isn't Law, but in drafting any amendments to the Constitution, the Preamble guidance and intent would/should be taken into consideration.
"You cannot take the preamble and the 2A and say well because they used these words here and there we can change the overall meaning of the 2A. Example being: well regulated militia, trumps the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed, because in the preamble it states domestic tranquility and welfare, etc."
If I were interpreting this back in the day to see if the Preamble trumped 2A, I would say "no, it doesn't trump." They work together.
I would be completely comfortable arguing that a well regulated militia goes along with "provide for the common defense." Also, ensuring domestic tranquility goes along with the establishment of the courts and justice system, which is separate from the militia and providing for the common defense and ensuring the blessings of liberty. I don't think they are contradictory at all, but work in tandem. I agree the Preamble isn't Law, but in drafting any amendments to the Constitution, the Preamble guidance and intent would/should be taken into consideration.
How so?
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Because you appear to be discounting that portion of the 2nd A. It's in there as clear as "shall not be infringed", and therefore is just as important, it doesn't negate "shall not be infringed" either.
I'm a huge gun fan, I want to own everything, I want to govt to leave me the fuck alone, but I understand there is a need for restrictions of some kind. I feel we have more than enough restrictions now and I'm against anymore, but I do see the need for some of the restrictions in place, e.g. restrictions on mentally deficient people, felons etc... to own firearms.
Brill
SOF Support
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...4f4-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html?hpid=z5
Federal court strikes down Cali's requirement that CCW applicants show good cause in order to be granted a permit.
MD has the EXACT same requirement, which was too stuck down in Federal court only to be upheld in appellate court. Impact?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ard-v-sheridan-decision-mean-to-other-states/
Federal court strikes down Cali's requirement that CCW applicants show good cause in order to be granted a permit.
MD has the EXACT same requirement, which was too stuck down in Federal court only to be upheld in appellate court. Impact?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ard-v-sheridan-decision-mean-to-other-states/
Last edited:
Thank you, sir.
This is awesome.
A well regulated diet being necessary to the security of your health, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
Unless of course we think what your eating is unhealthy, and we decided to restrict what foods you can have and or eat, how much food your refrigerator can hold, where you can eat that food, etc.
Again, the comma is important, as its making a statement of why, followed by the right of the people.
Last edited:
