2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

Call me crazy Dave...but it appears to mirror the rates across the country in general:

 

http://thepublicintellectual.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Homicides-1900-2010-2.jpg

True, but notice how NY led the national curve from 1960-1990 but trails the curve after that point. Dunno exactly what that means but it's worth pointing out.

[TheLeviathan]

And that may be statistically significant, but chalking the overall numbers up to gun laws seems like a stretch with context.

[DaveW]

NY murder rate went down 300% national murder rate went down 40%.

 

Gun deaths overall went drastically down once they cracked down on them with MMS. (Typically I don't like MMS, but in the case of violence or guns, I don't mind)

[TheLeviathan]

Again, you're going to have to cite something Dave.

[Steve J]

 

Yeah when we deviated from that whole three-fifths a person thing, the country really went down hill.  

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the 3/5ths rule. Slaves were essentially zero-fifths of a person when it came to rights.  That rule was expressly put in to subdue the representation of pro-slave states and pro-slavery ideals in Congress.

 

 

 

You know that it was only in 2007 that Supreme Court declared a gun control law as unconstitutional, right?  Funny how it took more than 200 years to learn the original intent of 200 year document...

 

No, for the first 150 years the laws were pretty much interpreted as they are post-McDonald/Heller, with odd errata occurring in the Western Frontier.  It was only in the 1930s when the courts reinvented the Constitution on such things.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

You don't seem to understand the purpose of the 3/5ths rule. Slaves were essentially zero-fifths of a person when it came to rights.  That rule was expressly put in to subdue the representation of pro-slave states and pro-slavery ideals in Congress.

You missed my sarcasm.   I know the supposed logic of the 3/5ths rule.  It was about getting more representation for the South--in spite of the fact the people the South wished to count had no voice of their own, were you know, Slaves.  Subduing Southern representation had nothing to do with it; It was designed to give those states an advantage: so they'd sign the document.   (In any case, the 3/5ths rule demonstrates the absurd and injustice context under which our Constitution was signed. Much much more is flawed about the Constitution than the 3/5ths rule; I invoked the 3/5ths because of it's absurdity, not necessarily it's import.)

 

So much of the Constitution is a result of comprise not intent. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully blind to history, how civilizations come to be.

 

On your other point, pre-1930 Supreme Court struck down nearly all regulation in the name of freedom of contract--you know when the Court said child-labor laws and the minimum wage were unconstitutional.  After which, due to Roosevelt and the Great Depression, the Court began enforcing the legislature's intent, and the Court began to debate what was and what was not a fundamental right.  The reason Heller/McDonald are so significant is because it changed the way the Court ruled on guns in the era it was willing to enforce regulation in general, including legislation on guns.   (To know how this works, see an early response of mine to one your posts...)

 

And if you want to go back to that world where the Court strikes down most regulation because of the right to operate within a free market...well we have two historical examples of how that works out, one fairly recent, the other one, a time you want to go back too.

[PseudoSABR]

Today, the Supreme Court turned away a constitutional challenge to the Connecticut assault weapon ban; which means that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the challenge.   So that should put to bed the notion that the second amendment somehow makes such gun control laws illegal or unconstitutional. 

[Mike Sixel]

And, Trump fires is campaign manager.......

[PseudoSABR]

 

And, Trump fires is campaign manager.......

Trump's gotten pretty quiet since his reaction to the Orlando massacre. He must be finally acknowledging that what worked for him in the primary will not work in the general election, though I think it's already too late.

[Squirrel]

 

Trump's gotten pretty quiet since his reaction to the Orlando massacre. He must be finally acknowledging that what worked for him in the primary will not work in the general election, though I think it's already too late.

Nah ... people have pretty short memories.

[Steve J]

 

You missed my sarcasm.   I know the supposed logic of the 3/5ths rule.  It was about getting more representation for the South--in spite of the fact the people the South wished to count had no voice of their own, were you know, Slaves.  Subduing Southern representation had nothing to do with it; It was designed to give those states an advantage: so they'd sign the document.   (In any case, the 3/5ths rule demonstrates the absurd and injustice context under which our Constitution was signed. Much much more is flawed about the Constitution than the 3/5ths rule; I invoked the 3/5ths because of it's absurdity, not necessarily it's import.)

 

 

 

No.  Just as with today, Representative seats are created in Congress according to population of all residents, not just Citizens.  It was a compromise to get them to join the Nation, but it did not give them an advantage.

 

It was certainly not absurd.

 

 

 

So much of the Constitution is a result of comprise not intent. To pretend otherwise is to be willfully blind to history, how civilizations come to be.

 

Really? what else in your view is a "compromise"?

 

you paint with a broad brush.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Really? what else in your view is a "compromise"?

 

you paint with a broad brush.

You realize the Bill of Rights was a compromise demanded by anti-Federalists, right?

[Steve J]

 

 

 

On your other point, pre-1930 Supreme Court struck down nearly all regulation in the name of freedom of contract--you know when the Court said child-labor laws and the minimum wage were unconstitutional.  After which, due to Roosevelt and the Great Depression, the Court began enforcing the legislature's intent, and the Court began to debate what was and what was not a fundamental right.  The reason Heller/McDonald are so significant is because it changed the way the Court ruled on guns in the era it was willing to enforce regulation in general, including legislation on guns.   (To know how this works, see an early response of mine to one your posts...)

 

 

 

It is more accurate to say that Heller/McDonald basically said the 2nd Amendment applied to the States the same way the Courts had previously ruled the other Bill of Rights items did.  

 

and by Pre-1930, you mean 1918?  Not really a time uncontemporary to the 1930s....

 

 

 

And if you want to go back to that world where the Court strikes down most regulation because of the right to operate within a free market...well we have two historical examples of how that works out, one fairly recent, the other one, a time you want to go back too.

 

I don't see how this at all addresses me pointing out how wrong you were about the attitudes of the law towards gun ownership prior.

[Steve J]

 

Today, the Supreme Court turned away a constitutional challenge to the Connecticut assault weapon ban; which means that the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear the challenge.   So that should put to bed the notion that the second amendment somehow makes such gun control laws illegal or unconstitutional. 

 

it does nothing of the kind unless you truly believe 9 -slash- 8 Ivy leaguers in robes decide what our rights are

[Steve J]

 

You realize the Bill of Rights was a compromise demanded by anti-Federalists, right?

 

On reflection I think you are right....

 

I do think it turned out for the best...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

On reflection I think you are right....

 

I do think it turned out for the best...

Sure it did.

 

But it was still a compromise.

 

Which puts back into play the god-like reverence of the document in the first place...

[Steve J]

 

Sure it did.

 

But it was still a compromise.

 

Which puts into play the god-like reverence of the document in the first place...

 

 

I do not agree.  A statement like this shouldn't come down to equating the discussions and maneuverings of the Founding Fathers with a more or less arbitrary set of rights decided only politically.  If you believe that the Hand of God was on this process, which I do, it should instill reverence.  If you do not believe so, then there is really no other conclusion other than it was formulated on little more than high-minded political constructs.

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I do not agree.  A statement like this shouldn't come down to equating the discussions and maneuverings of the Founding Fathers with a more or less arbitrary set of rights decided only politically.  If you believe that the Hand of God was on this process, which I do, it should instill reverence.  If you do not believe so, then there is really no other conclusion other than it was formulated on little more than high-minded political constructs.

Remember, the Constitution required roughly two years of vicious debate before ratification. To believe there wasn't compromise involved (including the addition of the most well-known aspect of the document, the Bill of Rights, at the very end of the process) is to intentionally ignore the history of the document.

 

And yes, I believe the Constitution was formulated on high-minded political constructs. The founding fathers were, by and large, amazing men of thought and progression. They argued vigorously amongst themselves and wrote paper upon paper upon paper extolling the virtues/damnation of government. They poured philosophy, economics, bleeding edge concepts about government and man, and all their utopian ideals into this new nation. They were bloody brilliant men.

 

But still men.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Furthermore, the "hand of god" really gets under my skin .

 

The founding of this nation was the triumph of a single class of person: the white male.

 

So, in my opinion, there are two options here:

 

1. God hates women and people of color. If his/her hand was in this thing and he/she rolled with everybody who wasn't a white male (even his/her own followers) getting the big, hard shaft, that's not a god worth following. That's a brutal, ugly god and I want no part of it.

 

2. God wasn't involved, just a bunch of really smart white dudes who, while very smart, still couldn't predict everything that would face the nation in the coming centuries.

[Craig Arko]

The Articles of Confederation.

 

https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

[Craig Arko]

A Second Constitutional Convention.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

[TheLeviathan]

The hand of god just forgot about everyone that wasn't a wealthy white land-owner huh?

 

C'mon.  That can't be a serious argument.

[PseudoSABR]

 

it does nothing of the kind unless you truly believe 9 -slash- 8 Ivy leaguers in robes decide what our rights are

They do actually.  Should we come to you instead to interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Words on paper mean nothing with the authority to interpret those words.  

[TheLeviathan]

They do actually.  Should we come to you instead to interpret and enforce the Constitution.  Words on paper mean nothing with the authority to interpret those words.

 

Not to mention that the same people/god that deemed the 2nd amendment vital also deemed an interpretive branch of government vital.

[PseudoSABR]

 

No.  Just as with today, Representative seats are created in Congress according to population of all residents, not just Citizens.  It was a compromise to get them to join the Nation, but it did not give them an advantage.

Yes it did give them advantage.  Just if we started counting illegal immigrants towards representation would give the Southwest an advantage.  

 

If you don't think counting a human being as three-fifth--for whatever purpose--then we've jumped the shark.   And if you can't admit that the Constitution was flawed and a result of compromise, well you're not being honest.  It does not require your faith.  The Constitution took dozens of men over the period of YEARS to write, if they weren't compromising what took so long. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

It is more accurate to say that Heller/McDonald basically said the 2nd Amendment applied to the States the same way the Courts had previously ruled the other Bill of Rights items did.  

No that's not more accurate from a legal perspective. That's a totally ideological way to look at that favors your preferred outcome.  

 

It's called the Lochner-era, pre-1930s.  

 

It's fine to disagree with me about what your opinion is, but you are not entitled to your own facts and your own history.  You need to start backing up your responses with sources if you want to be taken seriously. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Furthermore, the "hand of god" really gets under my skin .

Not to mention the notion of God influencing the Constitution defies the principal of the first amendment and founding, in part, of this country on escape from religious persecution.   

 

A good portion, if not a majority, of the founding fathers were Deists anyway. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Not to mention that the same people/god that deemed the 2nd amendment vital also deemed an interpretive branch of government vital.

I agree, but in the interest of clarity: The Courts power to overturn an act of the legislature on constitutional grounds is not without debate, as Article III does not specifically give the Court such power.  

But the necessity for Judicial Review is pragmatically obvious. 

[PseudoSABR]

The background checks amendment failed, 44 to 56. Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.) was the only Republican who supported it. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Joe Manchin (W.Va.) were the only Democrats who opposed it.

 

The terrorist watch list amendment failed, 47 to 53. Kirk and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) were the only Republicans who voted for it. Heitkamp was the only Democrat who opposed it.

At least Congress isn't subject to influence by special interests.

[Brock Beauchamp]

At least Congress isn't subject to influence by special interests.

It will be interesting to follow how this plays out in November. The GOP has 24 Senate seats up for grabs; the Democrats, only 10.

 

But the Democrats will probably trip over their own feet and inexplicably lose a seat because that's what they do.