PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on December 28, 2017, 05:41:23 AM
-
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/12/27/dershowitz-my-liberal-friends-dont-invite-me-to-dinner-anymore-n2427477
Politico wrote about a few top media and political figures and how they dealt with being mentioned by President Trump on Twitter. For one Hillary Clinton supporter, liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz says his family has seen better days. Dershowitz, a lawyer, is seen regularly on CNN, Fox News, and other outlets defending some of President Trump's decision, arguing there is no grounds for an obstruction of justice charge after he fired FBI Director James Comey earlier this year. While hoping that former Vice President Joe Biden challenges Trump in 2020, the liberal lawyer has said he’s lost several pounds this year, thanks to friends not inviting him to dinner anymore. He said his closest friends have told him that he’s 100 percent right in his arguments defending Trump's decision to fire Comey, but added that he should also shut the f**k up. In all, Dershowitz says he’s merely defending the principles of the Constitution, not Trump—though that’s fallen on deaf ears from his liberal colleagues.
-
The saddest thing about liberals is their never ending willingness to put the agenda ahead of integrity, truth, reality, and decency.
-
Hypocrisy, group-think, shaming despite principles?
Sounds like politics as usual.
-
Well liberals think the Constitution is a "living document" that they try to use to force their beliefs on others, so they getting mad by someone using it against them isn't a big surprise.
-
Well liberals think the Constitution is a "living document" that they try to use to force their beliefs on others, so they getting mad by someone using it against them isn't a big surprise.
The Constitution IS a living document. It can be changed by Constitutional Convention. Until then it should be enforced as written, not "interpreted" by activist judges.
-
The Constitution IS a living document. It can be changed by Constitutional Convention. Until then it should be enforced as written, not "interpreted" by activist judges.
I don't think there is any such thing as enforcement of the constitution without interpretation. The nature of language makes that so.
-
I don't think there is any such thing as enforcement of the constitution without interpretation. The nature of language makes that so.
Do you deny that the Constitution has been abusively interpreted by the judiciary to provide for a position that is impossible to see from the position of an Originalist interpretation?
-
I don't think there is any such thing as enforcement of the constitution without interpretation. The nature of language makes that so.
Much, if not MOST of it is written in plain English. Like "Shall Not Be Infringed".
-
Much, if not MOST of it is written in plain English. Like "Shall Not Be Infringed".
They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?
-
They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?
Ignorance in action. There is lots of good reading on the subject that clearly defines and explains, that is if you don't gravitate over to the progressive slanted opinions.
-
Ignorance in action. There is lots of good reading on the subject that clearly defines and explains, that is if you don't gravitate over to the progressive slanted opinions.
If it is "written in plain English", why do we need lots of good reading to define and explain?
This is my point. It's the nature of the beast that the Constitution must be interpreted.
-
If it is "written in plain English", why do we need lots of good reading to define and explain?
This is my point. It's the nature of the beast that the Constitution must be interpreted.
::) Understanding the english language has a lot to do with it.
-
Since the perfesser has such a difficult time using something like "google", I post this to try to help him out.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.
The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.
To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."
-
Historical ignorance is a true hallmark of liberal democrats.
When you ignore context at every turn, then you can pretend anything when bastardizing the constitution.
its kind of like altering temperature data to skew the findings to your agenda, instead of the existing data.
If a liberal was forced to accept history as it occurred, then they would be forced to declare facts as racist and make up even dumber lies to justify their receipt.
Oh, right.
That’s what they do now...
-
::) Understanding the english language has a lot to do with it.
It has everything to do with it. Language is beautiful, but imperfect and inexact. It is subject to regional variation and change over time. Its very nature means the reader must interpret the meaning of the author(s). Further, interpretation of the Constitution requires some amount of reading between the lines.
None of this is a secret. That the founders themselves argued over what the Constitution said or didn't say, or meant or didn't mean, is evidence of these truths.
-
It has everything to do with it. Language is beautiful, but imperfect and inexact. It is subject to regional variation and change over time. Its very nature means the reader must interpret the meaning of the author(s). Further, interpretation of the Constitution requires some amount of reading between the lines.
None of this is a secret. That the founders themselves argued over what the Constitution said or didn't say, or meant or didn't mean, is evidence of these truths.
The founders argued, and then they WROTE IT DOWN. Language is indeed imperfect. But the thread, the golden thread, is the infinitely important and cherished notion of individual freedom. If you are going to say our founding documents require "reading between the lines," you are giving a lot of power to those doing the reading. Our lawmakers are increasingly serving personal ideologies, special interests and agendas. People perceive this. It is partly why Trump is our president. He repeatedly said, and is delivering on the promise, that "My only special interest is you, the American people."
No need to go all Wittgenstein. Scalia knew this!
-
The founders argued, and then they WROTE IT DOWN.
You misunderstand. I meant that the founders argued AFTER they wrote it down!
Language is indeed imperfect. But the thread, the golden thread, is the infinitely important and cherished notion of individual freedom. If you are going to say our founding documents require "reading between the lines," you are giving a lot of power to those doing the reading.
It has always required reading between the lines. Ref: the argument between the founders (post-Constitution!) about whether to establish a national bank, and whether the constitution allowed the FedGuv the power to do so.
Our lawmakers are increasingly serving personal ideologies, special interests and agendas. People perceive this. It is partly why Trump is our president. He repeatedly said, and is delivering on the promise, that "My only special interest is you, the American people."
No need to go all Wittgenstein. Scalia knew this!
I generally hold short on doom-and-gloom comparisons of current vs. past, so I'm hesitant to say whether lawmakers are much different than they have always been. But I'm fine with all sides of the debate. Those who would radically rewrite the Constitution are held in check by the opposition. And vice versa.
-
The thing that most liberals forget is that the Constitution's context is as a document limiting the power of the State. NOT a document that grants rights to the people. The people have rights and the Constitution limits the power of the State to control those rights. If the Constitution is read in that context then the intent of the Founders is much clearer. The first part of the second amendment, "A well regulated militia..." is the focus of the Left. The second part "...shall not be infringed" is the focus of the Right, is the context of the Constitution, and the limiting statement on the power of the State.
-
I don't think there is any such thing as enforcement of the constitution without interpretation. The nature of language makes that so.
Do you deny that the Constitution has been abusively interpreted by the judiciary to provide for a position that is impossible to see from the position of an Originalist interpretation?
Bump for this question for asechrest.
-
They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?
Yumpin' Yehozephat!! I thought you were educated!
-
Bump for this question for asechrest.
There's a WORLD of difference between enforcing the constitution and rewriting it to suit the OPINIONS of activist judges.
-
They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?
Article I, Section 8 had already granted Congress the authority to fund, organize, train, and ARM armies and militias. Therefore the interpretation you (and many others) propose would make the first amendment entirely redundant. There was no need to grant any such "collective right" for the purposes of security since the constitution had elsewhere granted Congress all it needed for that purpose.
Here's a list of the state constitutions that contain right to bear arms clauses:
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm)
Here is the text from the oldest ones - note the use of "defence of themselves" is a non-collective right distinct from that of the collective "State"; later state constitutions were even more explicit in making the right distinct from any militia needs:
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
-
Interest that some states (CT, MA) that explicitly allow bearing arms are those that make it "illegal" in a practical sense.
-
They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?
All of us.... by U.S. Code.
The unorganized militia (legally speaking) is made up of "...all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45..." We are all militia. You, me, your dad, your neighbor, your brother, your boss, your dry cleaner, the mail man, the stock boy at the grocery store, the cook at your favorite restaurant, and the cable guy are all members of the unorganized militia.
You might be asking scratching your head thinking that we don't need a militia...what good can they do anyway. You ask, and I'll answer... It was the unorganized militia that brought down that plane in Pennsylvania on September 11 and prevented it from reaching it's target. Now I'll bet your saying, "What? Huh? That was just ordinary people." My point exactly. Ordinary people are the militia.
In addition the Shall not Infringed part is separate from the militia statement, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment as an INVIDUAL RIGHT. Any more questions?
http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm
-
All of us by U.S. Code.
In addition the Shall not Infringed part is separate from the militia statement, and the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment as an INVIDUAL RIGHT. Any more questions?
http://www.awrm.org/mission.htm
Someone will need to get a box of crayons and construction paper to explain this to the perfesser.
-
Someone will need to get a box of crayons and construction paper to explain this to the perfesser.
In a safe space? Maybe a Free Speech Zone like we had under Obama?
-
Hypocrisy, group-think, shaming despite principles?
Sounds like LEFTIST politics as usual.
FTFY
-
Asking what good is the militia - it was the use of militia that won the Battle of Guildford Courthouse in Greensboro, NC during the Revolution. Because of the casualties he suffered there as a direct result of his troops breaking ranks to chase the "fleeing" militia, General Cornwallis retreated into Virginia to await transport back to New York. But you know the rest of that story as the Battle of Yorktown.
More recently - the Governor of Maryland called upon the unorganized militia during WW-II to patrol for German saboteurs believed to be landing on the beaches. His radio address is linked here, a small part of which says:
http://www.davekopel.com/V/Maryland-Governor-calls-forth-militia-WWII.html
...It offers the opportunity for every able-bodied man to assist in protecting his home and his community against enemy activities. The militia will be organized under our State Law, and the men who enlist at this time of our grave emergency will be known as the "Maryland Minute Men."
The mission of the Maryland Minute Men is to furnish immediately, local protection against parachute troops, saboteurs, or organized raiding parties. It is planned that the units be confined to their own communities so that there will be assurance at all times that every residential section of Maryland will have protection.
-
Bringing in something very current - I read today that the freedom protesters in Iran are being attacked and some are being killed by the government forces.
How can they do this? Because the people there aren't allowed to have guns.
-
The only thing that ultimately keeps us free (more free than Europe, Asia, etc) is our ability, as citizens, to own firearms. Would we be able to hold off hostile, modern armed forces forever? No, but we would make them pay a huge price, and perhaps make it "not worth their while" like the Vietnamese, Afghans, Africans, and many others have.
The Progressives always want to make the 2A about the organized militia (National Guard), or "hunting", but it is about defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, foreign AND domestic.
-
The Progressives always want to make the 2A about the organized militia (National Guard), or "hunting", but it is about defending ourselves from a tyrannical government, foreign AND domestic.
Progressives ARE the tyrants of this world and love the power it gives them when they pound others into the ground for daring to disagree with them.
Progressives have the most pitiful, closed minds, the most violent personalities, the least tolerant of any dissent, and the most fond of using the government to stamp out freedom.
Progressives are the most insecure, jealous, spiteful, self-centered, and dishonest people in America. Their vision for government is a mafia like state, where anyone out of line gets shot.
Progressives ARE the communist party in America.
-
Progressives ARE the tyrants of this world and love the power it gives them when they pound others into the ground for daring to disagree with them.
Progressives have the most pitiful, closed minds, the most violent personalities, the least tolerant of any dissent, and the most fond of using the government to stamp out freedom.
Progressives are the most insecure, jealous, spiteful, self-centered, and dishonest people in America. Their vision for government is a mafia like state, where anyone out of line gets shot.
Progressives ARE the communist party in America.
Sometimes I think you're a bit too blunt and harsh. But I got to hand it to you, you know how to call a spade a spade. Everything you say here is the unvarnished truth. You usually do nail it, even if you phrase things less diplomatically than I would. ;D
-
FTFY
Bullshit. My post was far more accurate.
-
Bringing in something very current - I read today that the freedom protesters in Iran are being attacked and some are being killed by the government forces.
How can they do this? Because the people there aren't allowed to have guns.
It's been gosh I think over 20 years now, my friend from Iran told me that there was a huge part of Iran's population that wanted to get out from under the theocracy and join the modern world, and that he thought it was an explosive situation, that there would be an uprising and revolution soon. Well it has yet to happen and I think you hit the reason why.
-
It's been gosh I think over 20 years now, my friend from Iran told me that there was a huge part of Iran's population that wanted to get out from under the theocracy and join the modern world, and that he thought it was an explosive situation, that there would be an uprising and revolution soon. Well it has yet to happen and I think you hit the reason why.
The other tinderbox in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia.
I doubt the House of Saud survives another two years in power.
-
It's been gosh I think over 20 years now, my friend from Iran told me that there was a huge part of Iran's population that wanted to get out from under the theocracy and join the modern world, and that he thought it was an explosive situation, that there would be an uprising and revolution soon. Well it has yet to happen and I think you hit the reason why.
Iran used to be the most modern and "Western" of the ME countries until Milquetoast Carter allowed the co-called Islamic Revolution to go unanswered.
-
Iran used to be the most modern and "Western" of the ME countries until Milquetoast Carter allowed the co-called Islamic Revolution to go unanswered.
...and the traitor, obama used our treasury to find the caliphate.
-
The other tinderbox in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia.
I doubt the House of Saud survives another two years in power.
We don't need their oil anymore. They can go pound sand. Literally.