05-16-2017, 05:11 AM
(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.
In practice the First Amendment has obvious qualifications in legal tradition: one cannot defend a robbery notice or a ransom note as free speech if there is a robbery or a kidnapping. We have the concept of 'fighting words' that imply the practical dangers of calling some muscular black person a word that rhymes with the name of Roy Rogers' horse. Then again, it is extremely unwise to pick fights. Even my dog knows enough to keep out of the range of a cat's horrid fore-paws and the switchblades therein.
Quote:Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.
The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.
Original intent was for flintlock muskets and rifles... and maybe crossbows. In my ideal world you would need a hunting license to get a gun, and then only as appropriate for the hunt. If you need defense against intruders -- get 'the Other Big Cat, the one that makes a human dwelling as dangerous for an intruder as tiger turf in the Sunderbans. Messrs. R. Ottweiler and D. O. Berman will serve that purpose very well.
Quote:I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."
Slander and libel are civil torts. Child pornography is illegal not due to indecency (the content might be legal if it involved adults) but due to the harm to children and its alleged inspiration of perverts to imitate sexual abuse of children that they see (basically any sex with a child is abuse). Part of an assumption of employment is that one does not do things detrimental to the company, like disparaging its business model.
Quote:As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.
In view of the gross breach of national security that he did, he must be impeached. To be sure, Democrats have only one thing to gain from the impeachment of Donald Trump: influence enough over the selection of the next Vice-President so that that person is not simply part of some rogue's gallery of fanatics, Trump cronies, and yes-men. What do Democrats stand to lose should they choose to let a politically-crippled Donald Trump bring down his Party? A military coup might lead to the denial of elections in 2018 and 2020 that might first mitigate the power of the Right in 2018 and allow a Democratic President in 2020.
The difference between Donald Trump and Mike Pence is that there really is Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die for people who suffer adequately for the Master Class. Under an American Pinochet, there had better be Pie-in-the-Sky-When-You-Die for those who disappear into secret morgues for political offenders.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.