It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Hopechest
I think primarily that you are misinterpreting the text of the 9th amendment.
The 9th amendment is about the rights that are NOT enumerated in the constitution. For instance the congress cannot tell the people which side they must lay on when they sleep. As silly as that sounds, it is the very core of the 9th amendment.
Conversely the government cannot violate rights the people retain for themselves insofar as what arms and speech we choose to use.
Congress does not have a blank check on legislation. You probably think the General Welfare Clause is a blank check. It is not. Perhaps a little research on the Necessary and Proper clause would illuminate the issue for you.
The 2nd Amendment is open for the people, not for the government to do what it pleases.
Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,
What about free speech and free press? The only times that I can think of where certain those come into question is libel and slander, but that's a civil dispute between two private parties, not a criminal offense.
Originally posted by projectvxn
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest
Regulation is infringement
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,
What about free speech and free press? The only times that I can think of where certain those come into question is libel and slander, but that's a civil dispute between two private parties, not a criminal offense.
What about them?
You cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater even though it violates your first amendment right. No right is guaranteed to be unconditional.
Ever.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Originally posted by Galvatron
That's the thing, only if it violates the rights of others, which falls in line with the Isaac Asimov analogy.
My question was more related to the types of speech and media of speech. Internet forum, telephone, instant message, email, etc.
These kinds of interactions aren't explicitly stated in the first amendment. Would you say the congress has the power to regulate them, or do you think the congress should have the authority to regulate them based on your interpretation of implied powers and how it relates to the 2nd amendment?
edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Galvatron
Hopechest,
Please read up on various civilization's notion of the term rights throughout history. You will find that natural rights, as opposed to legal rights or privileges are distinctly different, the primary difference is that natural rights are unconditional. Isn't the constitution about natural rights wherever the people are mentioned? Natural rights are fairly well defined for US citizens.
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.
Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.
This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.
Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.
This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.
No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.
Originally posted by Galvatron
Infringement: To Transgress, violate, trespass, encroach, to make obsolete, to exceed the limits of, to violate.
You are suggesting to infringe only means to completely counter, deny, make obsolete. It can also mean to encroach, violate, or transgress. Limiting certain arms verses other is certainly an encroachment, violation, transgression.
I see what you are saying, but the word is most commonly used to refer to a transgression, encroachment, or violation.
If nation 1 infringes on nation 2's territory, nation 2 doesn't cease to be, it has merely been encroached on.edit on 9-4-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Hopechest
Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7
The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.
Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.
This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.
No.. you couldn't be more wrong. The U.S. Congress does not have ANY authority when it comes to guns and gun control. The bill of rights was written by THE STATES to the Federal Government. It is a list of things that the Federal Government is not allowed to do under any circumstances whatsoever, and the 2nd amendment says.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. That means that the U.S. Congress can't pass a single law regarding guns. Period. End of story. Furthermore, Article 1, Section 8 lists the enumerated powers of Congress. Those powers are THE ONLY THINGS CONGRESS IS ALLOWED TO DO (and guns aren't in there). That's it. Period. End of story. EVERYTHING ELSE not mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 is left to the individual states as per the 10th amendment. It really isn't that hard to understand... the Constitution is written in plain English and in very simple terms.
Actually you are the one that is incorrect. The second amendment, written by the States as you falsly claim, does not say that people can bear any arms ever invented. It simply states that the people have the right to bear arms. Therefore, as long as the Congress allows arms to be owned, there is no infringement. Blame the States, as you claim, for not being more specific in their language but regardless, nothing is saying that Congress cannot regulate them.
Also, as we've discussed, Congress also has "implied" powers as well as their enumerated powers so their reach extends beyond what is in the Constitution. You learn that in poly sci 100.
As for the States pushing the Bill of Rights, that is false. It was pushed by a certain segement of delegats, led by Jefferson and not by any specific State in itself. Many States did not even want the Bill of Rights for two reasons. The first is that they thought everything was fairly well addressed in the Constitution already and that it was too soon to start changing it and secondly, and more importantly, they felt that if you clearly outlined the rights of the States that only those rights would apply and nothing else.
They knew you couldn't possibly list every right that belonged to a State and by defining what those rights were, a State would forego anything not listed. However, Jefferson had convinced enough delegates to hold up the Constitution so Hamilton was forced to give in to his demands.