PseudoSABR

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So much for the loyalty of hounds. (No Ghost either...).

Yeah when we deviated from that whole three-fifths a person thing, the country really went down hill. Constitution was flawed then and it's flawed now. It's not holy. It was written by many people with many different intents. It must be interpreted, and there are a wide-range of reasonable interpretations that differ greatly. 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...

Only in theory are you correct. Nearly every mass-shooter was not a criminal prior to their atrocious act. These people aren't criminal experts; they don't associate with criminals. In practice, many of these individuals, esp. the white suburban males, wouldn't have any idea where to get an illegal AR-15. Sure, they could do it, but it would take time, and would be fraught with risk. It's not like texting around and trying to find some weed. (I'd like to see Dylan Roof try going to some urban center and asking around to buy a machine gun.) Additionally, gun laws do seem to be working, because we don't have known-criminals out there committing mass shootings. They too could conceivably buy weapons on the black market and stick it to the man with a mass shooting, but common criminals aren't the ones motivated to do mass-shootings; it's righteous people who disguise themselves in normality and bid their time until they commit the atrocity often willing to die.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Liberals want single-payer heath care, and openly admit it. We got ObamaCare b/c of compromise and corporate interests. No one secretly wants to take your guns, and the ObamaCare debate certainly doesn't prove that liberals or Democrats have some secret dark-hearted agenda. It's just right-wing paranoia and it's crippling the government. The notion that a controlling party shouldn't allow a vote if they won't like the results is anti-democratic any way you slice it.

What does the Libertarian Party offer that you guys like? I get the personal liberty and foreign policy, but their economic/regulatory policy is as bad or worse than the Republicans; it's basically neoliberalism on speed. Their stances on the environment, healthcare, education, labor, social-safety nets etc. are all abysmal. You can check out their platform here.

So he only started half the games as a supposed bench player? He didn't get an extended look, but he had an opportunity. Arcia might prove to be big league player, but the Twins have lots of poor fielding corner outfielders who might be able to hit. On the dude's third option year, it shouldn't be surprise. There's lots of nails in the FO's coffin, but this probably isn't one of them.

Johnson will need to hit a 15 percent polling average to qualify for debates (I'm not sure how this works exactly, what polls, by what date, etc.). I think the libertarian the rational conservative, and the conservative women vote will stick to Trump regardless whether there's a third-party candidate in the debates. I tend to think the more time Trump can talk the worse it is for him, so adding another person to the debate will limit Trump's risk/exposure.

Sad to see Arcia go, b/c his potential was salivating. But I can't blame the Twins plenty of bone-headed plays and missed opportunities lead to this. He could have cemented his job early on this year, but he blew it. Remember how he got hot in April for a week or two; he couldn't sustain it and couldn't adjust. That said, he could still be part of the organization; though I think some other team will take a flyer on him.

Park won't learn to adjust to ML pitching in AAA. He needs exposure at the ML level in this lost season. So do Kepler and Buxton at this point in the season. In the end, Santana's versatility wins the day.

You're probably right. Still, if the list was floated, why not include Sanders' name on the shortlist...I think it'd be a nod towards party unity, even if he's not seriously being considered.

Clinton's VP short list got leaked/floated Vox has a nice rundown of the candidates. Notably, Sanders is not being considered.

Incentive? How about all those dead bodies piling up. Or it's the right thing to do. Good leadership advocates for our political process to work, not put a stick in the gears.

Find me one politician or reputable liberal or even a poster on this board who has advocated for a total ban of guns. No one thinks that, only in right-wing nightmares. It's all kinds of wrong to guess what is actually in people's hearts, especially when it betrays what they actually tell you.

Who would let democracy and majoritarian rule get in the way of righteousness?

I saw that. I don't like giving Trump kudos but if he can get the NRA to the table so be it. The NRA has agreed to meet with him...

You're welcome, and thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll try to address your points, but I want do so comprehensively as some thematic issues arise in your responses. (Late edit: Let it be known, I still responded piecemeal even though I endeavored not to.) I think there's some misconceptions about the affect/power of the Constitution in terms of whether it forbids government limitations or bans of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court has held that the State can pass laws that implicate fundamental rights so long as there is a 'compelling' government interest and the law is 'narrowly tailored', the Court has often applied an additional step in that the law could be accomplished by no alternative means. In legal vernacular they call this strict scrutiny--but you can already see the wiggle room. It wasn't until 2003 (i.e. it took two hundred years to finally figure out what the second amendment was about), that the Supreme Court actually found a fundamental right withing the second amendment (Heller v. DC), and there the fundamental right was self-defense within one's home by firearm, so a law banning handguns in DC was declared unconstitutional. Up until then gun control laws, including the Brady Bill which in part banned 'assault weapons', were upheld as constitutional. The point is that gun control has always survived second amendment scrutiny. Let's just put the unconstitutional argument to bed, because it just isn't true in terms how the Court has interpreted the law, even at it's most pro-gun-right. Due process is essential in my opinion. But the American government is afforded many exceptions to our best efforts at due process including national security. As I've hinted at before, federal law already makes prohibited possessors of many different classes of people, from mental health to domestic violence issues. (See 18 USC 922(g)) . If our government can somehow imprison people without trial in Guantanamo Bay for national security purposes, you can be certain the courts will rubber stamp denying firearms to people for national security purposes. The extent of which would be a legal question, but one with much rope for the Feds. Background checks for firearms can be completed within hours, evidently, and the three days is a maximum waiting period not the minimum; there's no investigation, just a database check, I'm guessing. The gun-show-loop-hole is all about the secondary market, the law provides, "[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms." Gun-show sellers take advantage in that they buy from wholesale, who have a Federal Firearms License, and sell it to consumers at gun shows as 'private citizens.' There is no obligation to background check in such sales. (Of course, the prohibition of private sales of firearms could never be enforced locally, but on an organized scale, like a public conference/gun show, enforcement is certainly possible.). The gun industry has immunity to several vicarious liabilities based on negligence. (See 15 USC 7503(5)). Basically, they are immune as long as they work through third parties who then sell to criminals, which is how most industries work anyway (the separation between manufacturing, distribution, and sales. On arsenals and magazines, we can agree that any second gained might be another life, and such limitations are legally possible. I'm not beholden to them, but the are worth exploring. On modification and assault weapons, whatever limits the capacity to easily dispense bullets, whether it's a type of firearm or modification part, I'm for limiting/banning. Outside our ideal, a tax on ammunition would signal the weight of the responsibility. And although, I appreciate the regressive nature of any tax borne upon the poor, they would be unfortunately captured in such a scheme, as they always are when we revert to sales taxes, but a tax does deter, it is a reality, and thus a tool we must consider. I was really glad to see you're down for a buy back, but of course how could we pay for such a thing. Dare I say a gun tax... In any case, I hope you see there's room to come to some kind of legislative action without sacrificing your ideals or compromising the Constitution.