Curious as to how you libtards defend this.

[guest]

So an Obama-appointed Judge is arming Biden’s “newcomers” while simultaneously trying every day to make it harder for me to own weapons. Lol.

Now here’s where you go:

“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…”

 

[quasi101]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

 

[WifeStoreWill]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

 

[Leonard Rhomberg]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

Admin and his fallacies

 

[quasi101]

Admin and his fallacies

 

[Single Action Army]

I think everyone should be able to carry and I should have the right to shoot anyone I want

 

[Queefer Sutherland]

 

[guest]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well[/URL] , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

OP, comment?

 

[Farmer Brown]

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies.

I think it's stupid not to be an originalist. The people ratified the Constitution to mean a specific thing. How is it right for 9 unelected lawyers to usurp the will of those people because "times have changed." You want wiggle room? You have it!

The same mechanism that created the amendments which people think are archaic still exists to change the framework of the federal government to meet any modern demand.. It's been done by the People 27 times. You prefer an elite group of 9 unelected lawyers to do it for you? How very liberal and democratic of you. (NOT :-)

(Is it ok for a judge to change the terms of a contract between two people with no stipulations for change because "times have changed?" Of course not )

 

[Riccardo Bosi]

 

[quasi101]

I think it's stupid not to be an originalist. The people ratified the Constitution to mean a specific thing. How is it right for 9 unelected lawyers to usurp the will of those people because "times have changed." You want wiggle room? You have it!

The same mechanism that created the amendments which people think are archaic still exists to change the framework of the federal government to meet any modern demand.. It's been done by the People 27 times. You prefer an elite group of 9 unelected lawyers to do it for you? How very liberal and democratic of you. (NOT :-)

(Is it ok for a judge to change the terms of a contract between two people with no stipulations for change because "times have changed?" Of course not )

I'm too autistic for this post. The first thing is that we didn't really define originalist, so we very likely have different ideas about what that means. Secondly, its fine if you want to change the subject of the thread we don't have a "board culture" here, i just think its odd you took one aspect of my post to nickpick when i used an admittedly vague term.

lastly, can you make one point at a time you went through like 7 arguments here with various levels of sarcasm and/or irony so i have no idea what you're even disagreeing about.

Do you have an operational definition for originalist vs non? Here's the best i could do as a layman for now -

originalism - sticking to the original meaning and intent behind the Constitution's words, as understood when they were written. if you want to change the Constitution, you should do it through amendments, not through reinterpretation.

Non-originalism- interpreting the Constitution in a flexible way that considers how society's values and circumstances have changed over time. This focuses on the principles and values behind the Constitution's words, rather than the literal historical meanings, to apply them to modern issues.


I'm sure you put together something better than that.

 

[Farmer Brown]

I'm too autistic for this post. The first thing is that we didn't really define originalist, so we very likely have different ideas about what that means. Secondly, its fine if you want to change the subject of the thread we don't have a "board culture" here, i just think its odd you took one aspect of my post to nickpick when i used an admittedly vague term.

lastly, can you make one point at a time you went through like 7 arguments here with various levels of sarcasm and/or irony so i have no idea what you're even disagreeing about.

Do you have an operational definition for originalist vs non? Here's the best i could do as a layman for now -

originalism - sticking to the original meaning and intent behind the Constitution's words, as understood when they were written. if you want to change the Constitution, you should do it through amendments, not through reinterpretation.

Non-originalism- interpreting the Constitution in a flexible way that considers how society's values and circumstances have changed over time. This focuses on the principles and values behind the Constitution's words, rather than the literal historical meanings, to apply them to modern issues.


I'm sure you put together something better than that.

I'll respond here without sarcasm or irony and try and stay focused and organized responding from the top down:

Your definitions at the end of your post is perfect, in my opinion. Exactly what I was thinking of in my post.

Secondly, I don't know what board etiquette is. This is the first board I've been a member of/posted in, and only for a short time. Your post said a bunch, and I picked one point to respond to. I didn't realize it was odd to do so, nor did I think I was nit picking. In retrospect, I now understand I was. Any response to a post should be directed at the point of the post as a whole. Makes sense. I was nit picking, I believe, because I felt it was an important point, and I did not address your post in a way in which it would be easy to understand. I see that now. I am myopic.

I spit things out irrationally, ironically, and often sarcastically. Notably terrible ways to be understood or to make a point with no context. I only see that in retrospect. In my head I'm being fun. It seems it doesn't come out that way. I ought to read what I've written before I post

The only point I was trying to make is that not being an originalist is elitist and undemocratic. It relies upon an unelected group to make changes to the framework of government that should be reserved for the People alone. The words of the document mean what they were intended to mean. Any changes are reserved for the People. My impression is you believe the spirit and not the letter of the law is what's important. I don't think the law works that way I don't think the law can work that way if justice is blind.

Again, I believe your definitions are spot-on and exactly what I was thinking.

To conclude, I tend to lash out in a slipshod way because I think it's fun or funny. I see it rarely comes across that way . I focused on a small part of your post instead of the whole simply because that was the part that captured my interest.




I should have left it alone.

 

[quasi101]

I'll respond here without sarcasm or irony and try and stay focused and organized responding from the top down:

Your definitions at the end of your post is perfect, in my opinion. Exactly what I was thinking of in my post.

Secondly, I don't know what board etiquette is. This is the first board I've been a member of/posted in, and only for a short time. Your post said a bunch, and I picked one point to respond to. I didn't realize it was odd to do so, nor did I think I was nit picking. In retrospect, I now understand I was. Any response to a post should be directed at the point of the post as a whole. Makes sense. I was nit picking, I believe, because I felt it was an important point, and I did not address your post in a way in which it would be easy to understand. I see that now. I am myopic.

I spit things out irrationally, ironically, and often sarcastically. Notably terrible ways to be understood or to make a point with no context. I only see that in retrospect. In my head I'm being fun. It seems it doesn't come out that way. I ought to read what I've written before I post

The only point I was trying to make is that not being an originalist is elitist and undemocratic. It relies upon an unelected group to make changes to the framework of government that should be reserved for the People alone. The words of the document mean what they were intended to mean. Any changes are reserved for the People. My impression is you believe the spirit and not the letter of the law is what's important. I don't think the law works that way I don't think the law can work that way if justice is blind.

Again, I believe your definitions are spot-on and exactly what I was thinking.

To conclude, I tend to lash out in a slipshod way because I think it's fun or funny. I see it rarely comes across that way . I focused on a small part of your post instead of the whole simply because that was the part that captured my interest.




I should have left it alone.

 

[:sumaturry:]

I'll respond here without sarcasm or irony and try and stay focused and organized responding from the top down:

Your definitions at the end of your post is perfect, in my opinion. Exactly what I was thinking of in my post.

Secondly, I don't know what board etiquette is. This is the first board I've been a member of/posted in, and only for a short time. Your post said a bunch, and I picked one point to respond to. I didn't realize it was odd to do so, nor did I think I was nit picking. In retrospect, I now understand I was. Any response to a post should be directed at the point of the post as a whole. Makes sense. I was nit picking, I believe, because I felt it was an important point, and I did not address your post in a way in which it would be easy to understand. I see that now. I am myopic.

I spit things out irrationally, ironically, and often sarcastically. Notably terrible ways to be understood or to make a point with no context. I only see that in retrospect. In my head I'm being fun. It seems it doesn't come out that way. I ought to read what I've written before I post

The only point I was trying to make is that not being an originalist is elitist and undemocratic. It relies upon an unelected group to make changes to the framework of government that should be reserved for the People alone. The words of the document mean what they were intended to mean. Any changes are reserved for the People. My impression is you believe the spirit and not the letter of the law is what's important. I don't think the law works that way I don't think the law can work that way if justice is blind.

Again, I believe your definitions are spot-on and exactly what I was thinking.

To conclude, I tend to lash out in a slipshod way because I think it's fun or funny. I see it rarely comes across that way . I focused on a small part of your post instead of the whole simply because that was the part that captured my interest.




I should have left it alone.

How are you more autistic than @admin?

 

[quasi101]

How are you more autistic than @admin?

Lmao

 

[chewtoyrapist]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

So does this mean anything in regards to [my friend] carrying a gun in faggot ass illinois without their special permit, or is [my friend] still fucked if he has to shoot someone in self-defense?

 

[Farmer Brown]

How are you more autistic than @admin?

God made me that way?

 

[:sumaturry:]

God made me that way?

Being gay is a choice

 

[Dog Eater]

There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations

Wiggle room is what got us to where we are now.

I have no issue with illegal immigrants carrying guns. Also don’t care if some rancher shoots them as they cross his land.

 

[Guest]

So does this mean anything in regards to [my friend] carrying a gun in faggot ass illinois without their special permit, or is [my friend] still fucked if he has to shoot someone in self-defense?

I dunno man. Legal or not I would carry at all times if I had been threatened to be neutralized by someone with a space gun and fully loaded Chinese glock who also won sharpshooting competitions.