Trump Thread

[Strike For The South]

If textualism as such were possible, all Supreme Court cases would be decided unanimously or by a bureaucratic council of lawyers, without recourse to "reasonable" hypotheticals at any point in history.

And what judge doesn't revert to hypotheticals? Maybe Thomas? I suppose asking no questions because the text answers the arguements presented before you is a valid strategy. Most of these Judges merely side with capital against labor, in both social and economic cases. Although, considering who the founders were, they would probably be fine with that. But making that inference would be using my context, which is bad.

To be generous, by the same token given a modern context we could offer differing notions of what constitutes militia. For example, police, neighborhood watch, verifying general fitness to be National Guard (without joining), probably others. So there are certainly ways to weaken even a hybrid interpretation.

True. My whole thing is i want stricter gun controls and think the constitution allows for them. That's what I'm getting at as I wait for the optometrist.

In other news, Trump has finally broken the Catholic-Jewish stranglehold on the judiciary. For too long the voice of the white protestant man has gone unheard, this is our time!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Regarding a better vetting process - as a “Muslim” guy, I have experienced my fair share of vetting up until now.

This includes them taking my laptop and phone and demanding access codes, implying that they have the right to demand access to my Facebook profile and email, and generally just been forced to wait for hours. I dread to think they can take it any further.

Seeing your non-Muslim-looking friends and co-workers go through checks without incidents, often smiling sheepishly afterwards and apologizing (as if they have to), is both demeaning and humiliating.

Stuff like this is difficult not to take personal. So I am all for fairness.

I suspect I would feel much the same were I in that position. It is a fair point to make.

I also suspect that whatever enhanced vetting procedures become the norm will eventually extend to all refugees, immigrants, and those applying for extended residency.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...In other news, Trump has finally broken the Catholic-Jewish stranglehold on the judiciary. For too long the voice of the white protestant man has gone unheard, this is our time!

But how can we expect a judge to judge righteously if they have NOT been raised in a tradition of guilt?

[Xiahou]

The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

[Vuk]

So I heard that somewhere out there is a video of a Donald Trump where he has a garbanzo bean on his face. Makes me so proud that he is representing this country.
That is my serious and relevant commentary. :)
Peace, out.

[Dâriûsh]

That president sure is talking a lot about Iran right now.

[Idaho]

That president sure is talking a lot about Iran right now.

He needs external and internal enemies to keep up the aggressive momentum.

[Idaho]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document? It's not sacred, it's just a reasonably good legal text, with a few dated anachronisms - created by a small group of land owners and slave owners in a specific context.

[Greyblades]

Were I cruel, I would say that it is to the americans what a roman aqueduct was to a medieval european: a thing revered and studied because the ability to recreate constructs (or in this case legeslature) of such quality has been long lost.

[Idaho]

Were I cruel, I would say that it is to the americans what a roman aqueduct was to a medieval european: a thing revered and studied because the ability to recreate constructs (or in this case legeslature) of such quality has been long lost.

I think you might be right.

The most important statement in the US constitution is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I could never imagine happiness being enshrined in the UK. Spiteful misery, yes. Vengeful cruelty - natch. And yet while they wrote those words, they were condemning thousands to death, slavery in the pursuit of other's greed. I can't think of a stronger argument that the constitution is a product of its context and that context (like all contexts) was blinkered, hypocritical and self serving.

[Greyblades]

And I thought i was cynical.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

It's a legal doctrine that allows decades of precedent to be washed away while the judge hides behind the constitution claiming its not what the founders would have wanted. No one is a true originalist (except for maybe Thomas, the old scamp). They are an originalist when it suits them. It's an excuse for regressive policies in the guise of an ideology.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Except that's only half the sentence? You are leaving out as part of a well regulated militia. It's a right that comes with a responsibility. There is no need to have a prefatory statement if all the 2a meant was "you can keep your guns". You can keep your guns if you are well regulated.

If I told you: "I'm broke, so I've started sucking dick under the bridge" and then you went to Seamus and said "Strike is sucking dick under the bridge" you would be leaving at a pertinent peice of information despite the fact "I've started sucking dick under the bridge" is an independent clause.

[Strike For The South]

I think you might be right.

The most important statement in the US constitution is "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I could never imagine happiness being enshrined in the UK. Spiteful misery, yes. Vengeful cruelty - natch. And yet while they wrote those words, they were condemning thousands to death, slavery in the pursuit of other's greed. I can't think of a stronger argument that the constitution is a product of its context and that context (like all contexts) was blinkered, hypocritical and self serving.

Bruh. That's the declaration. Nice pontification though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think originalism means stripping away all context. I think it means looking that the context it was passed in.

This is..... not true. A strict reading of the 2A says no such thing. " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" stands as an independent clause grammatically- your textualist argument fails. Feel free to produce any support from the framers that they meant, if you want to try the originalist approach.

Grammatically, and it therefore follows legally, this is incorrect - what you quoted is not a single clause, it is a compound clause, a single clause would not have a comma.

"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."

This is a single complete sentence with a specific internal logic.

1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

2. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.

A literal, and contextually consistent, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be to have an armoury with M16 rifles in every town under the care of a professional armourer where every adult citizen (or just every adult male citizen) was required to train at least twice a month and pass certification on the weapon once a year.

Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).

Yet another interpretation would be that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" and ever man has a right to join and therefore "bear arms" which completely negates the private gun ownership argument - this being the line taken by the Supreme Court until some time after WWII.

What is most certainly true is that if you accept that the right to "bear arms" is inalienable then you must also accept that the "state" has a Constitutional responsibility to "regulate" with a view to forming a militia. Whilst this doesn't allow for an automatic weapons ban it DOES place certain responsibilities on the "state" to regulate the calibre of weapons being sold as well as the quality. You can't have your militia turn up with grotty rifles that all jam after a week and become unusable either because they were cheap or because they were poorly looked after.

There are certainly a number of interpretations, and I think that was deliberate, but it's very clear that the intention was for a regulated "citizen militia" which could defend the US from external enemies. It's also clear that regulation at either State or Federal level was seen as necessary to achieve the required level of effectiveness.

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document?

Mainly the second amendment. I have never seen any other amendment more defended in recent times than that one.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why do you Americans have to think that your constitution is a sacred document? It's not sacred, it's just a reasonably good legal text, with a few dated anachronisms - created by a small group of land owners and slave owners in a specific context.

One view

was looking for a European political scientist's assessment, but my google fu failed

[Pannonian]

Grammatically, and it therefore follows legally, this is incorrect - what you quoted is not a single clause, it is a compound clause, a single clause would not have a comma.

"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."

This is a single complete sentence with a specific internal logic.

1. A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

2. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.

A literal, and contextually consistent, interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would be to have an armoury with M16 rifles in every town under the care of a professional armourer where every adult citizen (or just every adult male citizen) was required to train at least twice a month and pass certification on the weapon once a year.

Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).

Yet another interpretation would be that the National Guard is the "well regulated militia" and ever man has a right to join and therefore "bear arms" which completely negates the private gun ownership argument - this being the line taken by the Supreme Court until some time after WWII.

What is most certainly true is that if you accept that the right to "bear arms" is inalienable then you must also accept that the "state" has a Constitutional responsibility to "regulate" with a view to forming a militia. Whilst this doesn't allow for an automatic weapons ban it DOES place certain responsibilities on the "state" to regulate the calibre of weapons being sold as well as the quality. You can't have your militia turn up with grotty rifles that all jam after a week and become unusable either because they were cheap or because they were poorly looked after.

There are certainly a number of interpretations, and I think that was deliberate, but it's very clear that the intention was for a regulated "citizen militia" which could defend the US from external enemies. It's also clear that regulation at either State or Federal level was seen as necessary to achieve the required level of effectiveness.

One would argue, with some substance given how the English language has been used through the centuries, that the first part of the sentence should be the most important. Second amendment fans should be doing their utmost to organise well regulated militias, with the subsequent clauses being subservient to this first and leading clause. Military history would point to organisation being the most important part of such bodies (with logistics, clear command hierarchy, etc).

I'm not too familiar with how things are in the states, so do the above exist in any practical form?

[drone]

This tells us a number of things - it gives primacy to the need for a well regulated militia, not a "free militia" but a well regulated one. It then specifies that the militia is to be composed of the "people" who have an inherent right to "bear arms". Here's the thing, in the context is was written "bear arms" means something different to "hold arms". Specifically, to "bear arms" is the right to use weaponry, not the right to own it.

Technically, we have a "well regulated" militia. The Militia Act of 1903 defines both the organized and unorganized militias, most males aged 17-45 are part of the latter.

Another interpretation would be a centrally held register of every firearm in the US and a requirement that every family with an income over a certain threshold possess at least one AR-15 derivative weapon chambered in 5.56mm NATO (so that the Federal Government can distribute ammunition efficiently in time of war).

Just one? Filthy casuals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Technically, we have a "well regulated" militia. The Militia Act of 1903 defines both the organized and unorganized militias, most males aged 17-45 are part of the latter.


Just one? Filthy casuals.

The question you need to ask your self is: if I presented the "unorganised militia" to George Washington how long would he need to organise them?

If the answer is anything other than a few weeks then it's a failure to the spirit of the Second Amendment. One of the purposes of the "Organised militia" is a final check on tyranny. If your military is basically the same as your civilian population it's virtually impossible to use one to oppress the other.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The question you need to ask your self is: if I presented the "unorganised militia" to George Washington how long would he need to organise them?

If the answer is anything other than a few weeks then it's a failure to the spirit of the Second Amendment. One of the purposes of the "Organised militia" is a final check on tyranny. If your military is basically the same as your civilian population it's virtually impossible to use one to oppress the other.

And that is the condition that currently obtains. Government tyranny would not be possible using the military because they would -- mostly -- interpret that as an illegal order and not gun down fellow citizens who were not actively shooting them.


As to your larger point, the "unorganized militia" that forms the bulk of our "militia" forces is a bit of a dodge of the spirit of the militia concept.

I would like to see the Guard as the organized militia, with a "reserve" militia force that does meet certain basic standards (weapons fit for use with annual mini courses in safety and basic range time) for all persons not delineated/accepted by the community as exempt from militia service and with as many of those as have appropriate skills serving in non-combatant militia capacity.

[Montmorency]

The big error was Scalia in the Heller case handwaving the establishing/prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment, which for other amendments is always understood as having equal stature to the "operative" clause, and claiming that it presented a statement regarding personal self-defense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some good points here.

At that juncture in my nation's history, it was really THESE and not THE United States of America.

State government was a much more profound influence on the populace and the scope and role of the federal government was much less than today.

In that context, the militias of each county or city were of much greater import than the militias of today, and outside the cities the militia often comprised nearly every male from 16 to 60ish in their local area.

That condition does not obtain today.

[Pannonian]

Some good points here.

At that juncture in my nation's history, it was really THESE and not THE United States of America.

State government was a much more profound influence on the populace and the scope and role of the federal government was much less than today.

In that context, the militias of each county or city were of much greater import than the militias of today, and outside the cities the militia often comprised nearly every male from 16 to 60ish in their local area.

That condition does not obtain today.

Does originalism/textualism take that into account?

[AE Bravo]

You know what middle eastern countries that are not in that list do right? Ban incitement speech and fighting words in mosques. If anyone should be deported, it's the openly hostile. IIRC this is a violation of the first amendment, and these people's existence in western societies is solely to condemn and dehumanize them. They have no purpose there and nobody will miss their imprisonment besides terrorists. There is a reason these preachers aren't in a Muslim country, you gave them leeway.

At this point Trump has nowhere to go but escalate things further. So what would doubling down look like? Blatant targeting of Muslims, which will divide the country and serve the interests of Islamists once again.

[Greyblades]

What doesn't serve the interest of islamists these days?

[Kagemusha]

What doesn't serve the interest of islamists these days?

Things that Kurds with Northern Sunni tribes,Iraqi army, Western Sunni tribes and PMU (with backing of Iran) are doing to them at Iraq at this very moment. Now without coalition air support for couple weeks since Trump took the office.

[Greyblades]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

[Husar]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

Can't seem to find any of that because alt-right terrorists attacked a mosque in Canada and that seems to be all that shows up now when you look for Trudeau on terrorism. Pics or it didn't happen. Also waiting for an apology from the alt-right, so far they seem to support this kind of terrorism.

[Kagemusha]

Yes, in reality that would be true, my question was a rhetorical question highlighting the tendency for Islamic apologists to declare every action that isn't sit there and turn the other cheek to the suicide bombings as playing into the hands of the Islamists.

For examples of what I am taking about you can listen to the speeches of professional cuckold Justin "If you kill your enemies, they win" Truedau

I understand that your question was rhetorical. That is why i thought it would be even more so important to answer to it with non rhetorical reply.

I think large part of the problem with Islamist is that both sides of Western political specter are rather more interested at criticizing the views of their political opponents concerning islamist. Rather then focusing in settling the issue of these lunatics in any way. If we look at the problem pragmatically. The body count islamist terrorist can create at Europe and US is rather minimal compared to other social problems. Our police and military forces with the aid of intelligence operators have hampered and foiled most of the attacks as of late, most even before those were launched. So i do not see any reason to spread hysteria over it. Last of today a fellow yelling Allahu Akbar and attacking people with a knife was shot at Louvre Paris.

It seems that the local inhabitants of Middle East are defeating the islamists at Iraq and Syria. With more time, less support they get from us, but defeating them anyways. The problem is what after that? We have the most islamist country in the World Saudi-Arabia as close partner of US and the West, so generally speaking. I cant see at least the financial support for the islamist terrorist/ Sunni supremist ending any time soon.

A completely other problem is possible radicalization of some of the Western Muslim communities, but that is an internal political problem of Western countries.

[Montmorency]

I think large part of the problem with Islamist is that both sides of Western political specter are rather more interested at criticizing the views of their political opponents concerning islamist. Rather then focusing in settling the issue of these lunatics in any way. If we look at the problem pragmatically. The body count islamist terrorist can create at Europe and US is rather minimal compared to other social problems. Our police and military forces with the aid of intelligence operators have hampered and foiled most of the attacks as of late, most even before those were launched. So i do not see any reason to spread hysteria over it. Last of today a fellow yelling Allahu Akbar and attacking people with a knife was shot at Louvre Paris.

The political issue, though, is of convincing the populace that they are in fact not much less safe than before when viscerally they reject statistical arguments. That issue is every bit as significant as actually "stopping" Islamists. Impunity in itself weighs heavily on the mind of the average citizen.