Sure, I pick on the Left.. I will go so far as to say that I am not happy with either the left or the right, and wish that their politics did not just seem to be a smokescreen to hide the fact they are screwing all of us..
Now for the subject of the day.. Obamascare… and the “it is not a penalty, it is a TAX” joke..
The Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause of the constitution did not allow the government to force people to join health care programs. Then they went and said that the Government could tax you (a penalty?) for not joining something they had no authority to force you to join….
Think of it this way.. The next time a state, or even the federal, government announces another execution don’t think of it as a “death penalty” think of it as the new “Death Tax”.
The most taxing thing I see about this is their logic… Then again they are lawyers and therefor not really normal..
As we debate the issue of what the 2nd Amendment really means, and who it really applies to, we are also debating the rights associated with 9 other amendments that also form th Bill of Rights.
Here is a nice link to the Bill of Rights Institute, which not only give a text of the Bill of Rights but, some information about the rational for the Bill itself..
Here is a portion that has given so many people a lot of confusion…
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, this is where some of the confusion came from… For years the militia part was interpreted to mean the amendment applied to the federal government, and not the individual citizen. They took the “well regulated militia” to mean the Military, even though most of our founding fathers did not seem to envision a standing army.
So, what is a militia? Look here for a good definition of a Militia. The courts have held, recently, that the 2nd amendment really did apply to the states, and the people. It would be kind of hard to explain how one amendment would only apply to the federal government while the other nine applied to the “the people” mentioned in the 2nd…
We are really lucky that the Federalist did not get their way. They were sure that our rights were obvious and that we did not need to delineate them in the Constitution. We have a Bill of Rights written into the Constitution and we are still arguing about what they mean… So what do you think would have happened if we did NOT have the Bill of Rights? The Antifederalist wanted a list of rights, the federalist did not, they compromised and gave us a short list, with the understanding that any close decisions was to be decided on behalf of the Citizen.
Ok.. Most people will tell you that we have the right to bear arms, some reluctantly. Some people will tell you that we do not need high capacity magazines, or semi-automatic weapons (for the liberal news people who might be reading this the semi-automatic means that it only fires one shot each time you pull the trigger, and the name is not interchangeable with automatic weapon), or even the right to carry (again for you liberal news people that means to carry).
No, I don’t need a 30 round magazine. Most of the time I don’t even need a firearm but, needing and having are two different things… I don’t normally need a fire extinguisher, but sometime I might, so it would be nice to have one on hand. The question, which so many of the rabbit want to ignore, is not about if we need to bear arms the fact is ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.verb (used without object)
2.to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don’t infringe on his privacy.
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break
If you, or anyone, wants to limit our rights to what we need then you will have to see the constitution as just another piece of papers…. which can be ignored at will..
Without people who believe in it the U.S. Constitution it is just an old piece of parchment to be thrown out when it becomes inconvenient. such as when it is no longer NEEDED..
We have choices.. We always have choices. One is that we can abide by the Constitution, another is we can ignore it, kind of like the “gun” control people seem to want, or we can change it..
The first two do not seem like viable options, since a number of people are determined to ignore it, so that leaves us with the idea of change.. Yes, the constitution has been changed in the past. We have added more amendments, and done away with at least one, remember prohibition?
Then again, does anyone remember the Articles of Confederation? It brought the states together but, did not give the central government the power to make the states behave. So they decided to “revise” the Articles of Confederation to give the central government more power, and to make bills easier to pass.
Thus it was, in just a few years” replaced. Never voted out, the new Constitution was just voted in.. Would we really want to risk that?
Lets go back to the idea of NEEDS.. What do we really need.. and if we don’t need something who will decide if we need it.. I know we already have people who will infringe on the 2nd Amendment by saying you can’t have more than a certain number of rounds in a magazine, it is NOT A CLIP,
We have been told that you don’t need to tell lies about other people(slander or libel), unless you are a politician, or yell “fire” in a crowed theater unless there really is a fire.
Just think of the “Bill of Rights” and consider how many of them you really “NEED” on a given day.. For those of you who don’t get arrested, for example, you won’t “NEED” the right to have a lawyer present, or the “right to remain silent”. There are a number of “rights” that we have and yet don’t need on a daily basis so, who is going to decide which of the “rights” you “need” and when you need them…. Will there be a secret court, such as the now famous FISA court, where they will decide if you even “need” a trial by your peers, or will they just pronounce you guilty, and the first thing you hear about it is when they take you to serve your sentence?
One last thought for the day: for those of you who say that our founding father’s did not anticipate high capacity magazine, or even weapon that could fire more than one shot, I say, look at how the world has changed, since then and understand that they did not anticipate the internet, the phone system, telegrams, and many other wonders we have. Wonders that the Supreme Court has been called upon to apply our rights to. What if it had been decided that, since they had only envisioned the mail, that he telegraph, your phone, your cell phone, or the internet did not come under those items protected by the Constitution. Any of those things could then be open without probable cause, and you would have no electronic privacy.
No.. For thousands of years marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman… and sexual conduct between person’s of the same sex was viewed as a “perversion” with practitioners of same being considered “perverts”.
Most state laws, even those not related to marriage, are based on “common law” which is a sort of unwritten law. These unwritten laws were adopted over the years as a way to keep order in a society. While many of these laws would fall in line with the “10 Commandments” the reason had more to do with the keeping of order, rather than a religious proscription.. This is why many none Christian countries had laws similar to those in Christian countries, as society understood that certain acts would conflict with the common good, and order, of a properly working society. Murder, robbery, rape, theft, and things such as libel were know to creat disorder and were therefore prohibited. The family, being important to the structure of society, was proscribed as being between a man and a woman, with added prohibitions against such things as being married to more than one spouse, marriage to certain blood relatives, and being married to a spouse under a certain age. As for the last two the degree of prohibition varied by area.
In the United States there are a number of law that prohibit the practice of sodomy, which would seem to invalidate homosexual marriage, as well as incest, which had resulted in that prohibition.
The United States Supreme Court seems to be about to decide if the marriage of homosexuals in a constitutional right, or not. Not being a constitutional scholar I don’t see the connection but, I can see the possibility of them striking down the bans against the marriage of homosexuals, which leads me to wonder how long it will be before they also strike down the other prohibitions.
A lot of the conversation has to do with what people think about homosexuals, Are they really a perversion that society must be protected against? I don’t know though I would have to go with the idea that they are not the norm, and to allow them to marry would help to diminish the concept, and purpose, of marriage.
I am reminded of an old episode of the TV show “West Wing” where several White House staffer were holding a discussion with several mid range military offices on what the President stance on this subject of “Gays” in the military would be. At one point one of the staffers, makes that statement that “the President, as Commander n Chief of the Armed Forces can say that they can stay, and that is “it””. The Military staffer points out that the Uniform Code of Military Justice still prohibits sodomy and that since that is a law passed by congress it doesn’t really matter what the President says, it is still illegal conduct. The UCMJ also prohibits adultery.
Could the Supreme Court decide in favor of homosexual/Gay marriage? Yes, it is possible. What the constitution says is often a reflection of the Justices views and might have little to do with what the Constitution says. Look at Justice Sotomayor who made the statement during her confirmation hearings, which she later took back, that she would bring her “hispanic viewpoint” to the Supreme Court. This is a sure indicator that she considers her viewpoint to be more important than what the Constitution actually says… and she has voted with the Liberal block ever since… All the Justices do is make the Constitution say what they want it to. So the question is : are there enough Justices on the Supreme Court who understand that society, and the institution of marriage, must have a stable framework, or are there enough Justices who feel that marriage is just another legally recognized relationship that can be molded to fit their view?
I think I have been pretty consistent about our right to “bear arms“.
I refute that our rights are limited to what people, or some of them, think we “need” to have. The “Bill of Rights” says noting about these right being applied “only in time of need” but says, our right, what our rights are… and they are not based on current need.
Who would be the one to say which rights we “NEED”? Nobody. Our rights are what they are, and this is not based on someone thoughts about what we need. That includes rights other than the right to “bear arms”.
Most recently, in just the last couple of days, I have started to hear people say that our founding fathers did not intend us to have the kind of weapons that are available.. They rationalized that since the founding father did not know about modern weapons the could not have intended us to have the rights to them…
To this I have several things to say. First, they did intend that we have a militia, which is basically a citizen army, which means we would have to be able to obtain weapons that could be used by the Military. At one point in time the Supreme Court upheld the laws against short barreled weapons, say a shotgun that had the barrel cut down, with the reasoning that by cutting down the barrel it would render that same shotgun useable by a military and thus it was not in keeping with use by a Militia.
The second thing this persons statement brings to mind is that the founding fathers also did not envision T.V., Telephones, Telegraph, Electric typewriters, computers, the Internet and a whole bunch of things that have been invented since then.. Does this mean that we only have rights in relation to things they knew about? Would our free speech NOT include the Internet?
Over the years we have gotten these answers from the Supreme Court each time they have adapted their ruling to changes in technology. The rights against unreasonable search have been applied to things like our mail, the phone,and to some degree our vehicles. The courts have applied the concepts to things that our founding fathers probably did not see coming. What if they had said that there was no need for privacy rights to cover a wire going out of your house, and so anybody could tap your phone without a warrant? They did not do this, as they reasoned that there were situations where a person had a certain “expectation of privacy” in which case a warrant was needed.
The “Bill of Right” says what they are, and the Supreme Court interprets what the “Bill of Rights” says… Recent decisions by the court have dismantled some of the most repressive firearms law in the country. Law that violated, or infringed on, our right to bear arms.
So, to those of you who feel that we, the law abiding citizen, have not rights to bear arms you would have to change the constitution so that we only have the rights that YOU think we should have…
On the other hand you should keep in mind that idea that we got the present constitution, and government, when they decided that changes must be made to the “Articles of Confederation” that formed the framework of our first national government. They were just supposed to make changes to it. Instead that gave us a completely different organization.
I am not a legal scholar, nor am I about to become one, so maybe I can be excused for not really understanding the newest Supreme Court decision.
It seems like on the Justices just said that the Government can not mandate your joining the health care system but they can extract a penalty from you, they call it a “TAX”, for not joining….
This is interesting.. Now I am going to go off on an idea.. Part of the idea of why the Feds wanted to force everyone into the health care industry the premise that if someone, with out health care insurance, or poor, got sick then the people with healthcare insurance would have to pay for them…. therefore they were really in the healthcare system whether or not they had the insurance, and the are now just being punished for not joining in the first place…
Now, how about this idea.. You don’t have a car, so you don’t get auto insurance. If you are injured someones insurance will have to pay for your injuries, so maybe the next step would be to penalize you, er tax you, for not having auto insurance?
President Obama said this was not a tax but, the Supreme Court said that was the only way they could justify the law was through the use of a tax. It must be nice to have a job for life, where you get to make it up as you go along, all the while knowing that you can’t be fire just because you are a bozo….
Thank you very much Justice Roberts. What is next? A tax on not joining a health club?