The New American Politics thread

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What do you think a right to "bear arms" means?

(insert obvious joke)

Avoiding obvious joke it could mean anything from the right to own a knife to the right to a Titan rocket with a nuclear head, they are all 'arms'.

The right of the government to ban the ownership of arms is established, the only question is what does it choose to ban and what will the courts go along with.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Or like, you know, cops and stuff.

How many people do the police shoot and kill down there? This is a serious question.

I would like to see stats on how many people the police kill up here, where we have gun laws, as opposed to down there.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found some info:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-...ations/5438391

and
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/pol...world-nations/

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The point is, it's possible to restrict people's gun ownership rights, without giving each individual a process, for certain public policy based reasons without running afoul of the 2nd amendment.

Exactly! Restriction lists are legal and are constitutional because of the process used to achieve and maintain the law. This is a very complex process, which is why a lot of people don't understand it, but it is legal and is done with oversight. I had to have our legal counsel explain it to me and go through a significant Q&A before I was confident I had an understanding of it. Do I personally agree with the process? Not really, but it does work and achieve a goal that is difficult to manage based on the ambiguity of the constitution itself.

[Coach]

I'll just re-post what I had in the Mass Shooting thread a while ago:

Originally Posted by MattyC

Top bar is Assault (other)
Middle Bar is Assault (Sharp object)
Bottom bar is Assault (Firearm)

Almost 2/3 of homicides in the US were commited by firearms. Actually sounds pretty reasonable until you look at the other comparable countries where only two others have firearm death rates above 50% (Greece and Italy; Portugal and France maybe close as well). And that's putting aside the fact that the homicide rate in general is towering over everyone else. If the US gun violence could even be cut in half, it MIGHT bring them down to respectable levels (albeit still well above everyone else).



Look at all those Latin/South American countries that are sending their spooky citizens to the US with comparable homicide rates between major US cities and their ENTIRE COUNTRIES.



Whew, finally a graph that favours the US. Wait, is that Afghanistan, Congo, Iraq and Pakistan? Great company there.

And finally, and most stunning IMO, accidental deaths by firearms!



..funny, it's almost identical to the first graph.

Yeah... there's a problem. I don't see how it's possible to deny it. Your only comparable firearms death rates are f***ing war zones.

http://www.humanosphere.org/science/...-s-rest-world/

No matter which way you slice it, there are too many gun related deaths.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by mattyc

i'll just re-post what i had in the mass shooting thread a while ago:



No matter which way you shoot it, there are too many gun related deaths.

fyp.

[Flash Walken]

Spoiler!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Avoiding obvious joke it could mean anything from the right to own a knife to the right to a Titan rocket with a nuclear head, they are all 'arms'.

Agreed. It's a matter of where you draw the line. I'm not sure the thing has any force or effect if you limit it to a pocket knife, though.

Originally Posted by New Era

Restriction lists are legal and are constitutional because of the process used to achieve and maintain the law.

Again, no, it's not the process, it's the content of the law that matters. As a result, it's possible to have some restriction lists be constitutional, and others not constitutional.

For example, if someone were to pass a law creating a restriction list that allowed people to only buy firearms manufactured by Glock, that would almost certainly be unconstitutional despite having been enacted using the same process as, for example, an assault weapons ban.

[calumniate]

Interesting town hall meeting on guns. Too bad Anderson Stupor and the trump network got to host it

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

The 406,000 dead due to gun violence number is misleading as it is also including suicides and justifiable homicide.

But leave it to CNN to BS viewers who they know can't be bothered to look into facts themselves, while they sensationalize the issue with Hollywood-esque promos using bang bang sound bites and dark art to paint a dystopian world while we have a countdown clock for Obamas big interview with Cooper.

Fun fact.

If you subtract gun related deaths on weekends and by right handed people the numbers look even better.

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Fun fact.

If you subtract gun related deaths on weekends and by right handed people the numbers look even better.

Lol, 2stonebirds thinking cnn is too democratic leaning. That's pretty extreme as they lick the shoes that trump walks on

[Azure]

Originally Posted by New Era

Please expand. Explain how a restriction list in unconstitutional. Explain how this is a contravention of due process.

You can be put on the list and you have no way to 'defend' yourself. The 4th amendment affords you the right to due process in the case of something like that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sorry, you still don't understand due process, and most importantly, substantive due process or the courts review process in either. As I stated, there is not infringement on a fundamental right, and a judicial rational or intermediate basis review supports this. This allows the government to use restrictions by means of legislation to achieve a specific goal as reasonable and need not be tested. The rational or intermediate basis test then places burden of proof on a challenger. When the government is attempting to further interest such as public safety, of which gun control and flight access restrictions fall, are protected from challenge by intermediate scrutiny. This challenge was upheld in District of Columbia v. Heller, and confirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but applied a caveat that the 2nd amendment does not define a right to keep or carry a weapon in any manner whatsoever. Restriction lists pertaining to public safety routinely pass the intermediate scrutiny muster making them law of the land and difficult to challenge on constitutional basis.

That is all fine and dandy. No problem with a no fly list existing if it isn't abused. We all know it is and no judicial rule or 3rd party is being allowed to help the people that are on the list for no reason.


Therefore it is unconstitutional.


Similar to gun ownership. I'm fine with someone owning a firearm. Also fine with someone being banned from owning one. But there has to be a way for someone to prove that hey, I got my problems looked after and I'm ready to own a gun.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Dude. That's not how it works. It doesn't go, "hey guys, this is bad stuff, therefore it's unconstitutional". There's centuries of jurisprudence involved.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Again, no, it's not the process, it's the content of the law that matters. As a result, it's possible to have some restriction lists be constitutional, and others not constitutional.

Actually, the process is what makes it constitutional. You are aware that the constitution is a framework that establishes how government functions and is not just limited to the Bill of Rights, like so many people think. The Bill of Rights are the first ten to amendments to said constitution, not the actual body of the document. If a law is created following the process defined by the constitution, and meets all the tests defined by that document, the law is constitutional. It remains constitutional until someone attempts to challenge it and either go through another judicial review or a change is made through amendment via a constitutional convention. This is not open to interpretation. This is how the process works. Denial of this is just a woeful display of ignorance of the constitution and its function. This is why those who claim to be constitutionalists, like those Oathkeepers #######s, are a joke because they focus on their interpretation of the Bill of Rights and ignore the rest of the document which clearly defines what makes a law constitutional or not. It is the process of compliance with the methods in the constitution that make something constitutional. Hence there have been laws on the books that have been fine for decades, but as society evolves and contexts change, they be come antiquated, challenged, and only then deemed unconstitutional. But again, only after running through the process of defining whether something is constitutional in nature or not. Interpretation by someone does not mean a hill of beans as long as it meets the requirements of the constitution and meets the tests defined in the document itself.

For example, if someone were to pass a law creating a restriction list that allowed people to only buy firearms manufactured by Glock, that would almost certainly be unconstitutional despite having been enacted using the same process as, for example, an assault weapons ban.

And why would that be unconstitutional? If someone were to introduce that bill, get agreement through congress, have the president sign off on it, and have it muster a judicial test, why would that be unconstitutional? It would meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, fulfilling the intent of the right to bear arms, so why would it be unconstitutional? There is nothing in the constitution that says congress can not limit choice. In fact, they do so all the time through protective legislation and restrictions of products coming into the country. I, as an American, do not have the right to purchase and install a residential fuel cell available in Japan or Germany that could power my home at a low cost and allow me to operate off the established grid. That is a restriction on my freedom of choice and self determination. Is that unconstitutional? Nope. That's the way the system works. Unless I wish to work the system and change law that restricts these products I will not have access to them via legal markets. That is the way the system works. So, while your example is extreme and unlikely (as usual) it is completely within the realms of possibility and would be constitutional in nature.

[Itse]

About the no fly lists, The US is known to bully and harass political activists (even pacifists) and reporters by putting them either on the no fly list (which has some tens of thousands of names) or simply on "the list" which is kept by TSA and is even bigger and even less openly talked about.

Originally Posted by New Era

If a law is created following the process defined by the constitution, and meets all the tests defined by that document, the law is constitutional. It remains constitutional until someone attempts to challenge it and either go through another judicial review or a change is made through amendment via a constitutional convention. This is not open to interpretation. This is how the process works. Denial of this is just a woeful display of ignorance of the constitution and its function.

Now you're just splitting legal hairs.

If a law is struck down as unconstitutional in the supreme court, an average person would I think say that it was always unconstitutional. (Unless they changed the constitution after the law was created.)

I would agree with that "average persons" view.

In fact, one could easily challenge that something in the US system can not be said to be constitutional before that claim has been tested in court. But that's really semantics and not that interesting.

[edslunch]

Looking forward to someone starting a U.S. Constitution thread so we can get back to politics :-)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Looking forward to someone starting a U.S. Constitution thread so we can get back to politics :-)

Sadly, this is the very foundation of most political disagreements in the United States. If more people understood the mechanisms of government the arguments would be much less vitriolic and could focus on issues instead of interpretative governance.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by New Era

If a law is created following the process defined by the constitution, and meets all the tests defined by that document, the law is constitutional. It remains constitutional until someone attempts to challenge it and either go through another judicial review or a change is made through amendment via a constitutional convention. This is not open to interpretation. This is how the process works. Denial of this is just a woeful display of ignorance of the constitution and its function.

Okay, not to appeal to authority, but you understand I do this for a living, right? Stop for a moment and consider whether or not I'm likely doing so in a state of "woeful ignorance" about how constitutional law works.

Now, it's possible that I'm wrong - nothing you've said so far has been at all convincing on that point, but maybe you'll say something new and different soon that alerts me to some idiosyncracy in the US system that I wasn't aware of and is fundamentally divergent from other common law traditions in this area. That's a reasonable possibility, and I'd be open to learning something new. But at the moment, it seems like you've just had counsel explain something to you and you've gotten one small piece of it wrong, and have emotionally committed to that error.

That aside, your commitment to your own rightness on this topic is fascinating. Once corrected, you double down on your own certainty in your belief, only in more aggressive and belligerent terms like "woeful ignorance", as if you're offended at being questioned. I've already said: yes, this is how the process works, in the sense that you challenge a law you think is unconstitutional through a judicial review process before a court. But the law is not suddenly made unconstitutional through said judicial review. If it were, you would have the following absurd scenario.

Defendant: "I've been convicted of a crime under this statute punishable by death. However, I believe the law is unconstitutional for the following reasons!"
Court: "After considering your arguments, we agree. The law is unconstitutional, and therefore, of no force or effect."
Defendant: "Excellent! I'll be going then."
Court: "What? Oh, no, you're still sentenced to death."
Defendant: "But you just said the law was unconstitutional!"
Court: "Right, NOW it is. Now that we've said so. But when you broke the law, it wasn't unconstitutional. It was in full force and effect and was enacted using the appropriate process for creating legislation. The "unconstitutional" thing only just happened. Take him away."

Hence there have been laws on the books that have been fine for decades, but as society evolves and contexts change, they be come antiquated, challenged, and only then deemed unconstitutional.

Only then deemed unconstitutional. But the implication when they're ultimately overturned is that they always were, and we were just wrong about it before. Consequently, previous decisions suggesting that a law was constitutional, which is now being struck down, are overturned, and no longer binding.

Interpretation by someone does not mean a hill of beans as long as it meets the requirements of the constitution and meets the tests defined in the document itself.

You keep saying "meets the tests". I have a suspicion that we're talking about the same thing - by "meets the tests", do you mean, "does not contravene the principles expressed therein"? If so, I don't see how this is consistent with your other statements.

why would that be unconstitutional? It would meet the requirements of the 2nd amendment, fulfilling the intent of the right to bear arms, so why would it be unconstitutional? There is nothing in the constitution that says congress can not limit choice.

Overly literalist view of the constitution, I think. The second amendment (as it's been interpreted by the USSC, anyway) guarantees the right to own guns, within reasonable limits that can pass the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny. So, if you have a limit that's aimed at a public good like public safety, and a means that's reasonably connected to it that doesn't overreach the policy goal (e.g. a list restricting ALL guns would be struck down), you're probably okay to legislate that. If you have a limit that's not aimed at a public good - in this case, helping the good people at Glock USA obtain a monopoly over the industry - you're not okay, that's getting struck down. And it'll be struck down regardless of the legislators' following the correct process to enact it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

... It actually just occurred to me that we're re-enacting the Euthyphro basically word for word, except substitute "constitutional" for "pious" and "Court" for "God".

Anyway, on a much more entertaining note, a series of letters between Jefferson and Madison about this, as re-constructed by the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily...ocial_facebook

If every private citizen had the right to carry a musket, a thousand people would’ve shot Patrick Henry by now, am I right? Don’t worry about it. Everyone will know what it means.

JM

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Sadly, this is the very foundation of most political disagreements in the United States.

I understand that. But I don't understand why.

Why isn't the constitution the foundation of most political disagreements in Canada, Germany, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, or Japan?