Since it is getting close to 4th of July.........

[Arnfinn Madsen]

...I will post some of the lines from the Constitution worth celebrating which Bush probably flushed in the toilet:

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy your celebration, these passages are worth celebrating.

[slamdunkpro]

What's your point? Other than to throw stones at the President

Tell you what - let’s post some liberal favorites:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(hmmmm don’t see anything in there about separation of Church and State; I also don’t see where it say “except for 30days before an election” - McCain/Feingold)

Amendment II

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.

(stop pretending it’s not in there – it is)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(well, unless your private property is for someone else and they have a good plan and it’s “for the public good”)

[natedogg]

If you're critiquing Gitmo, bear in mind these rights do not apply to foreigners. I'm no fan of Gitmo but the crime there is not that he is violating anyone's US constitutional rights. He's violating *human* rights, which aren't actually defined. It's like that SCOTUS judge once said about pornography, you know it when you see it.

If you're critiquing PATRIOT act, I'm with you. It's an atrocity.

natedogg

[ QUOTE ]
...I will post some of the lines from the Constitution worth celebrating which Bush probably flushed in the toilet:

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment V - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment VI - Right to speedy trial, confrontation of witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Amendment VIII - Cruel and Unusual punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy your celebration, these passages are worth celebrating.

[/ QUOTE ]

[andyfox]

"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."

Stop pretending the first clause is not there.

[slamdunkpro]

I know it's there - the last part is the important part. Don't take my word - read the Federalist Papers

[Dynasty]

http://www.reformk12.com/reformk12images/entries/july4th07042004.jpg

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"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."

Stop pretending the first clause is not there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy you are a good reader. Wouldn't you agree that the latter clause is more clear and less ambiguous in intent than the first clause?

The first clause may be a rationale but the latter clause is an edict.

[Zeno]

A somewhat forgotten Amendment (also called Articles) is number III

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Almost seems quaint now doesn't it only because it is so taken for granted. But it was a major beef with many in the colonies.


Amendment IV is still one of the most important and revolutionary of all the amendments in the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) -

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Another good one to remember:



Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

Thanks for the reminder Andy; I am going to purchase that rifle I've found. A Ruger mini-30 with scope and 30 round magazine. A present to myself and in celebration of the Bill of Rights, American Freedom, and my old friend Thomas Jefferson and his 'pursuit of happiness'.

I have posted this before but it is worth posting again.

[ QUOTE ]
From Thomas Jefferson’s last letter, in which he had to decline being at the 50th celebration of the signing of the declaration of independence. (He died about a week lately, on July 4, 1826)



“May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”


[/ QUOTE ]

.

[andyfox]

I've read 'em. What makes you think the last part is the "important" part?

[andyfox]

"Andy you are a good reader. Wouldn't you agree that the latter clause is more clear and less ambiguous in intent than the first clause?"

Thanks for the compliment. The latter clause is the independent clause, which can stand alone as a complete sentence. A dependent clause, which the first one is, cannot.

You and I have been over this ground before. The framers were careful writers [the evidence of those superfluous commas, and the messed up electoral college system, which had to be fixed by the 12th amendment, notwithstanding /images/graemlins/frown.gif]. They could just have said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first amendment, for example, begins with an independent clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]" It doesn't say, "The ability of people to worship as they please being necessary to the liberty of a free state, Congress shall make no law . . ."

So why is the dependent clause there? As a rationale? Why no rationale in the first amendment? Or any of the others in the Bill or Rights? A dependent clause modifies the independent clause. Why doesn't the amendment say, "The Indian nations, being a continuing danger to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." The framers didn't need a rationale for the amendments, they wanted them to say what they wanted them to say. They wanted militias to have the ability to do their jobs, and thus for the people to be able to keep and bear arms so that they could.

[ACPlayer]

If you're critiquing Gitmo, bear in mind these rights do not apply to foreigners.

Why do you say this? I just looked thru the constitution and it does not define Person. In fact in a number of places it refers to Person and then adds a qualifer regarding number of years of being a citizen (for example in eligibility for being a senator). So clearly Person is a superset of citizens.

If one was to go with a lay definition of Person that would mean that the dealings of US with all Persons should be according to the guidelines of the constitution. If a US official arrests a person in Afghanistan then according to the constitution this Person has the same due process rights as do you.

Welcome any clearly referenced definitions that invalidate the above.

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the reminder Andy; I am going to purchase that rifle I've found. A Ruger mini-30 with scope and 30 round magazine. A present to myself and in celebration of the Bill of Rights, American Freedom, and my old friend Thomas Jefferson and his 'pursuit of happiness'.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fine choice what I love about all the 7.62X39 caliber guns is how cheap you can buy all that russian surplus ammo for it's great for blowing threw those 30 round clips. I myself am looking at buying an AR50 I know it's bit extravagant and vastly overpowered for almost anything, but then you never know... Also the multiflute recoil check is about the coolest thing I've ever seen. it's a present to myself for another great year enjoying my right to bear arms.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
What's your point? Other than to throw stones at the President

Tell you what - let’s post some liberal favorites:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(hmmmm don’t see anything in there about separation of Church and State; I also don’t see where it say “except for 30days before an election” - McCain/Feingold)

Amendment II

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.

(stop pretending it’s not in there – it is)

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(well, unless your private property is for someone else and they have a good plan and it’s “for the public good”)

[/ QUOTE ]

I would hardly call the person you're describing "liberal."

1. Both conservatives and liberals alike use a first amendment argument to justify all kinds of "speech."
2. Right to bear arms can rightly be interpreted in a way that does not mean "right to bear automatic weapons."
3. Recent eminent domain laws offend sensible people in all political parties.

Name calling doesn't make your point.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, we've discussed the 2nd Amendment before, but perhaps not this particular aspect of it, if I recall.

From your response, it seems like you are agreeing with me that the first clause may be a rationale--and that its purpose there is not completely clear. The latter clause however is bold and clear and may stand alone.

So: your argument seems to be that the first clause must be a sort of hinging rationale, without which the latter clause would not be needed or would not apply. But that is mere guesswork and does not eliminate the edictorial nature of the latter clause.

It seems you are suspecting and arbitrarily applying a property of external exclusivity to an apparent rationale, and thence deducing that in the absence of those conditions, the edict would not apply. That is not logically airtight, however. And since there is room for doubt, I don't think that can be used to wholly controvert the bold edict given in the latter clause.

On a related side note, I think that the apparent rationale in the first clause--(the ability of free citizens to form) a militia being necessary to the security of a free state--still retains its validity, and therefore nothing has really changed at base.

[etgryphon]

Andy, if you are in the US, you are in the militia right now according to Mason the author of the 2nd amendment.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

[bobman0330]

The more important point is that none of these criminal process amendments apply to people who are being held as enemy combatants. What should these people be tried for? There's no admissible evidence that most of them have committed criminal actions. They're just al-Qaeda soldiers. We can't release them, because then they'll go back to trying to kill Americans. The solution is, and has always been, to lock them up until such a time as it is safe to release them. If they want to complain about how it's going to take a very long time to beat al-Qaeda, they should be complaining to their buddies for being so sneaky. You didn't hear complaints from the Red Cross when we interned German POWs during WWII.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]

2. Right to bear arms can rightly be interpreted in a way that does not mean "right to bear automatic weapons."


[/ QUOTE ]

Not according to Miller v. United States. All you have to prove is that any arm can be reasonably found in the Military Armory. Which is a funny fact because most people want to ban gun that look like "Military" guns but those are the only guns that Miller allows.

-Gryph

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're critiquing Gitmo, bear in mind these rights do not apply to foreigners.

Why do you say this? I just looked thru the constitution and it does not define Person. In fact in a number of places it refers to Person and then adds a qualifer regarding number of years of being a citizen (for example in eligibility for being a senator). So clearly Person is a superset of citizens.

If one was to go with a lay definition of Person that would mean that the dealings of US with all Persons should be according to the guidelines of the constitution. If a US official arrests a person in Afghanistan then according to the constitution this Person has the same due process rights as do you.

Welcome any clearly referenced definitions that invalidate the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you completely. Constitution just states that the "accused" and I think that it is hard to argue that the people in GITMO aren't "Accused". I do however believe that we are in a ongoing campaign against the people who associate with the prisoners so under the rules of war we can keep them.

The Patriot Act is an Abomination. There is nothing in it that is good or hasn't been covered elsewhere.

-Gryph

[ACPlayer]

THe question raised was whether the constitution applies to foreigners.

The answer, I dont know.

Now to the guys in Gitmo. We achieve the goals of keeping them off the street by treating them under the geneva convention. Under that convention we do not however get to interrogate them aggressively. Whether ignoring the consitutional rights of a "Person" under our control or the Geneva Convention rights of a Prisoner is worh the Public Use interests of the US government is what drives the Gitmo debate.

[bobman0330]

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=339&invol=763) :

"n extending constitutional protections beyond the citizenry, the Court has been at pains to point out that it was the alien's presence within its territorial jurisdiction that gave the Judiciary power to act....It is war that exposes the relative vulnerability of the alien's status....But the nonresident enemy alien, especially one who has remained in the service of the enemy, does not have even this qualified access to our courts, for he neither has comparable claims upon our institutions nor could his use of them fail to be helpful to the enemy."

In the aftermath of [i]Rasul v. Bush there is some question of the continued validity of this case, but the Court there explicitly refrained from overruling Eisentrager.

So, no, non-resident aliens don't have Constitutional rights. But it was a nice theory. Could we go back to my other point, which at least had the virtue of being debateable?

[TomCollins]

These apply to US Citizens and residents.

Thank you, try again.

[andyfox]

The latter clause is bold and clear, but it does not stand alone. Maybe it could stand alone, but it doesn't. It stands modified by the first clause.

Reading in the Federalist Papers (particularly #28 and #46), which pro-gun lobbies like to quote, it is evident the writer(s) is(are) talking about armies and militias and the need for the people to have arms to participate in those.

The "bold edict" in the latter clause does not stand alone. Again, all of the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights contain "bold edicts" not modified by any dependent clause.

However, disagree though we do over this, any post that contains this sentence . . .

"It seems you are suspecting and arbitrarily applying a property of external exclusivity to an apparent rationale, and thence deducing that in the absence of those conditions, the edict would not apply."

. . . gets my vote as a candidate for Post of the Year. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

From Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention:

"Mr. Sherman took notice that the States might want their Militia for defense against invasion and insurrections, and for enforcing obedience to their laws.

"Mr.Mason thought there was great weight in the remarks of Mr. Sherman."

So Mason recognized that the militia could not be the entire population of the state as the militias could/should be used for defense against internal insurrections or to enforce laws within the state.

But, conceding the point, wouldn't the point hold that Congress shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms needed to maintain an effective militia?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The latter clause is bold and clear, but it does not stand alone. Maybe it could stand alone, but it doesn't. It stands modified by the first clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, let's take a more modern example.

Suppose you were to state the following: "A well-fed and decently clothed family, being necessary to the happiness of an Andy Fox, I must make money in my apparel business."

Does that imply that without your family, you would not need to make money in your business?

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
From Madison's Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention:

"Mr. Sherman took notice that the States might want their Militia for defense against invasion and insurrections, and for enforcing obedience to their laws.

"Mr.Mason thought there was great weight in the remarks of Mr. Sherman."

So Mason recognized that the militia could not be the entire population of the state as the militias could/should be used for defense against internal insurrections or to enforce laws within the state.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are saying this to mean that those who are "breaking the laws" and the insurrectionists are now not lawfully "keeping and bearing" arms then I will agree. The 2nd amendment states that these lawful citizens who should be called into action to defend the state must be allowed to "keep and bear" arms in order to fulfill this duty which still stands today.

Your quotation of "to enforce laws within the state" is the reason that LAWFUL citizen should be allowed to carry arms to prevent crime and protected themselves.

George Mason only allows for one exception why LAWFUL citizens do not HAVE TO keep and bear arms is if it against your belief system (i.e. pacifist).

So as a LAWFUL citizen, I'm in the militia, you're in the militia, we're all in the militia. We as LAWFUL citizens can and should be called at a moments notice to defend the state or "to be used for defense against internal insurrections or to enforce laws within the state"

That is why I carry a firearm where ever I go and wherever I can (which should be everywhere).

[ QUOTE ]

But, conceding the point, wouldn't the point hold that Congress shall not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms needed to maintain an effective militia?


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm missing something here...you have just repeated the 2nd amendment.

-Gryph

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
Andy, if you are in the US, you are in the militia right now according to Mason the author of the 2nd amendment.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

-George Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

NH Sir!