WRL62

[waiguoren]

There are constitutional protections for Americans to vote.

Big goalpost move there. You were talking about felons voting. There are no constitutional protections for that.

You also never go on to address the second part of my argument, that since the federal government is free to set its own criminal laws

It's not "free to set its own criminal laws". The areas in which the federal government is authorized to create crimes is narrow, or at least it is supposed to be. At the founding it was limited to piracy, counterfeiting, treason, and crimes committed on the high seas or against the law of nations. Every single one of these areas is enumerated in Article I, Section 8. In recent decades, things have gotten muddier as the federal government has aggregated authority that it isn't supposed to have. See: The Federal Criminal "Code" is a Disgrace.

you can be a criminal in your state without violating state law. Which is bonkers, especially if you take your federalist genetic argument as having any value.

So? What's the issue there? How is it "bonkers"?

The founding fathers could have designed it such that criminal law was outside of state jurisdiction. They didn't, and Americans have bonkers consequences as a result.

What? This is way off. Take treason. It's the only crime defined in the US Constitution. The Crimes Act of 1790 codified it in the US Code and established sentences. None of this has anything to do with state law or state courts. When Burr went on trial for treason, he didn't appear in a state court. He appeared in federal court in Richmond and SCOTUS Chief Justice Marshall oversaw the case.

Seriously, I thought you were Australian.

Why?

 

[Trotsky]

I’m finding it hard to believe that someone with a Russian screen name doesn’t understand this concept, or thinks it doesn’t exist elsewhere in the world. Do you think Chechnya and Tuva have the same local laws?

Federalism exists throughout the world (and, @Prokofievian, the federal criminal code is delineated toward federal purpose), but he is right that United States conflicts of law are pretty uniquely convoluted, silly, and self-perpetuating. And the sort of federalism that existed up until the Great Depression, and which wai seems to endorse, would have kept the United States in developing country-style arrested development for eternity and would reek absolute havoc on any modern nation because of the effect on commerce, particularly internet commerce, data, and telecommunications.

so crazy that just about every large nation in the world that has widely different cultures and ethnic groups uses it.

Hmm, I don't think this is accurate, at least for political questions of a federal franchise. I think the amount of autonomy that the US federal government gives to states in the administration and qualification of federal elections would be (rightfully) recognized and invalidated as a serious threat to the rights and collective franchises of other states in most any other country.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I did. Don't like it? Good.

Had I known it was the work of a connoisseur I wouldn't have popped off.

 

[Fawlty]

Had I known it was the work of a connoisseur I wouldn't have popped off.

I enjoy that it's slightly difficult to click in desktop notifications. It will become slightly easier to click approximately 38 versions from now, but between now and then I'll be brainstorming ways to ensure it's somehow still inconvenient.

 

[waiguoren]

If you've always stated your for the right to own whatever firearm that shoots however many rounds then I apologize for confusing you with someone who couldn't grasp something as simple as the 2nd.

My point is the 2nd Amendment is a red herring there. The right to which you refer is embedded in the Constitution itself and would exist legally (in practice is a different issue) even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist. See: 10th Amendment + Article I, Section VIII.

Madison didn't support a Bill of Rights at all (including 2nd Amendment). Why? Because he wrote the Constitution in such a way that the federal government was to be weak and unable to do things like take your guns.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I enjoy that it's slightly difficult to click in desktop notifications. It will become slightly easier to click approximately 38 versions from now, but between now and then I'll be brainstorming ways to ensure it's somehow still inconvenient.

That gibberish aside, I've got a thread idea and you're a perfect participant. PM if you want to be a contributor and create some fun around here.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

My point is the 2nd Amendment is a red herring there. The right to which you refer is embedded in the Constitution itself and would exist legally (in practice is a different issue) even if the 2nd Amendment didn't exist. See: 10th Amendment + Article I, Section VIII.

Madison didn't support a Bill of Rights at all (including 2nd Amendment). Why? Because he wrote the Constitution in such a way that the federal government was to be weak and unable to do things like take your guns.

Try not being less vague and maybe I could follow along better. Sorry.

 

[waiguoren]

It would make sense for states to administer state elections, and set laws for who can vote in those. But for federal elections? Nope. These people are all Americans, and thus should have the exact same access to their rights in Federal matters.

So you're inventing a "right" out of thin air, then asserting that the fundamental governing unit (the state) must not be allowed to deny people this imaginary "right".

There is no "right to vote" in the US Constitution. Read the Constitution. There is no direct election of any federal officeholders. Not the president, not the federal judges, not the senators, not even the representatives (because states are required to be chopped up into districts and the states control their own districting).

Try not being less vague and maybe I could follow along better. Sorry.

Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to send someone to your house for the purpose of pooping on your sofa? Nope, but there's no amendment forbidding it. Likewise, the federal government has no authority to take your rifle away from you. The federal government has only a short list of powers. Congress only has the powers listed in Article I, Section VIII plus a few others it later gained through amendment.

The 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was thrown in to convince the anti-federalists agree to ratify the Constitution. It was a political tool, that's it. It shouldn't have any legal significance, because what it purports to do is already covered elsewhere.

 

[Trotsky]

Try not being less vague and maybe I could follow along better. Sorry.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to send someone to your house and poop on your sofa? Nope, but there's no amendment forbidding it. Likewise, the federal government has no authority to take your rifle away from you. The federal government has only a short list of powers. Congress only has the powers listed in Article I, Section VIII plus a few others it later gained through amendment.

The 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was thrown in to convince the anti-federalists agree to ratify the Constitution. It was a political tool, that's it.

Great.

It shouldn't have any legal significance, because what it purports to do is already covered elsewhere.

But case-law shows it does. And when it comes to contracts, buttoning-up important points is never a bad idea. I'd go so far as saying it's stupid not to. Based on your reputation as a better here, maybe look at it as safeguarding.

 

[JDragon]

I did. Don't like it? Good.

Sucks

Worst eva

 

[waiguoren]

But case-law shows it does. When it comes to contracts, buttoning-up important points is never a bad idea. I'd go so far as saying it's stupid not to.

I think the opposite might be true. Madison and the other federalists were concerned that enumerating rights in the Bill of Rights would mislead people into thinking those were the only rights. That's why they stuck the 9th Amendment in there. It's possible we wouldn't even question the right to bear arms if the Bill of Rights were never ratified.

That said, I'll agree that we've diverged so far from the framers' intended constitutional structure that at this stage the 2nd Amendment is important.

 

[JDragon]

That said, I'll agree that we've diverged so far from the framers' intended constitutional structure that at this stage the 2nd Amendment is important.

This is a general point and not related to guns, but society, technology etc. have evolved to a point where the interpretation of the US Constitution with a teleological or originalist interpretation must often inevitably fail. Consider the aspects of treatment of natives, slavery, etc. which were possible under almost the same constitutional structure you have today. Consider the legal persecution of gays. Essentially, even a conservative SCOTUS would block laws to put gays into jail or re-introduce servitude. I think this would also have to be true for the 2nd (without knowing the legal opinions of scholars or case law here, admittedly): Weapons today are not the same as they were then, so "bearing arms" does not mean the same it did then.

 

[waiguoren]

Essentially, even a conservative SCOTUS would block laws to put gays into jail or re-introduce servitude

On the gay thing: spell this out more.

On the "servitude" thing, do you mean slavery? Servitude is legal in all 50 states, as far as I know. Slavery is forbidden in all states under the 13th Amendment, so this doesn't support your argument.

I think this would also have to be true for the 2nd (without knowing the legal opinions of scholars or case law here, admittedly): Weapons today are not the same as they were then, so "bearing arms" does not mean the same it did then.

The true originalist interpretation says: the federal gov't has no authority to regulate any weapons (except for buying/selling across state lines). If we want to place national statutory limitations on ownership, we must amend the Constitution. You could say "that's silly, since we can't have people owning nukes", to which I would reply "yeah and the people would agree with you and quickly amend the Constitution to ban private ownership of them".

 

[Prokofievian]

Big goalpost move there. You were talking about felons voting. There are no constitutional protections for that.

American felons. Are felons not American?

It's not "free to set its own criminal laws". The areas in which the federal government is authorized to create crimes is narrow, or at least it is supposed to be. At the founding it was limited to piracy, counterfeiting, treason, and crimes committed on the high seas or against the law of nations. Every single one of these areas is enumerated in Article I, Section 8. In recent decades, things have gotten muddier as the federal government has aggregated authority that it isn't supposed to have. See: The Federal Criminal "Code" is a Disgrace.

Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers by the constitution, more at 11. But they are more or less free to criminalize things irrespective of state laws, e.g. cannabis.

So? What's the issue there? How is it "bonkers"?

It is inconsistent, which is quite a big deal when what's at stake (criminally) is taking someone's right to liberty or perhaps life. Consistency in this regard is absolutely essential to me, but it might not be to you: it's ultimately a question of values. I value freedom. You evidently value greater freedom to abrogate the freedoms of others. I think that's bonkers.

What? This is way off. Take treason. It's the only crime defined in the US Constitution. The Crimes Act of 1790 codified it in the US Code and established sentences. None of this has anything to do with state law or state courts. When Burr went on trial for treason, he didn't appear in a state court. He appeared in federal court in Richmond and SCOTUS Chief Justice Marshall oversaw the case.

Cool facts, but not relevant.

Why?

I have my suspicions. Do you perhaps enjoy the occasional shrimp on a barby?

 

[JDragon]

On the gay thing: spell this out more.

On the "servitude" thing, do you mean slavery? Servitude is legal in all 50 states, as far as I know. Slavery is forbidden in all states under the 13th Amendment, so this doesn't support your argument.

Alright, I don't know the US Constitution very well, so point taken. Yes, I was talking about slavery ("Leibeigenschaft" in German, i.e. ownership of people - servitude was proposed as a translation).

I would still argue that if the 13th amendment would suddenly vanish, this would not make slavery legal; instead, the SCOTUS would find interpretations of existing law to prohibit it.

The true originalist interpretation says: the federal gov't has no authority to regulate any weapons (except for buying/selling across state lines). If we want to place national statutory limitations on ownership, we must amend the Constitution. You could say "that's silly, since we can't have people owning nukes", to which I would reply "yeah and the people would agree with you and quickly amend the Constitution to ban private ownership of them".

So is owning nukes explicitly banned by the Constitution? If not, do you regard laws regulating the ownership of war material and WMD as unconstitutional?

 

[Prokofievian]

I can only infer that my post was so nice you had to reply to it twice.

So you're inventing a "right" out of thin air, then asserting that the fundamental governing unit (the state) must not be allowed to deny people this imaginary "right".

All rights are invented out of thin air. This is not new. You are bringing a descriptive knife to a prescriptive gun fight. We could change, for example, to a right that is uncontroversially in the constitution, for example the right to bear arms, and the actual meat of the argument would remain the same: states shouldn't be able to restrict your federal right to liberty based on their whims. I understand that they are at the moment, but that's stupid.

There is no "right to vote" in the US Constitution. Read the Constitution. There is no direct election of any federal officeholders. Not the president, not the federal judges, not the senators, not even the representatives (because states are required to be chopped up into districts and the states control their own districting).

Sorry, there are no protections for voting in the constitution?

Does the federal government have the constitutional authority to send someone to your house for the purpose of pooping on your sofa? Nope, but there's no amendment forbidding it. Likewise, the federal government has no authority to take your rifle away from you. The federal government has only a short list of powers. Congress only has the powers listed in Article I, Section VIII plus a few others it later gained through amendment.

The 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the Bill of Rights) was thrown in to convince the anti-federalists agree to ratify the Constitution. It was a political tool, that's it. It shouldn't have any legal significance, because what it purports to do is already covered elsewhere.

This was answered in my other post, but it's cool that you thought it bore repeating.

 

[JDragon]

On the gay thing: spell this out more.

I was unaware of this, but my point also was here: if someone were to move to place fines or jail sentences on gay sex, this would certainly be struck down by SCOTUS based on a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution compared to what it would have been in the 19th century.

Another example: under German law, women had to get their husbands' permission to work in the 1950s. This was upheld by the Bundesverfassungsgericht but later struck down by the same court based on a different interpretation.

 

[curryjunkie]

some triggered bitches in here ...

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

That OP is solid and needs more love.

Now, I don't often improve these threads in any way because of my medically uncontrolled flatulence.

But I wrote a poem for the subject.

*ahem*

An egret is a bird that flies
And eventually it dies
It's something I'm sharin'
About this flying heron