What is this statement saying?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:53:33 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  What is this statement saying?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Poll
Question: "A glass of milk, being necessary for a balanced breakfast, the right of the people to keep and own cows, shall not be infringed."
#1
You can only own cows if you use them to obtain glasses of milk that you drink at breakfast
 
#2
Drinking milk with breakfast is just one reason as to why the right to own cows should not be infringed
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 34

Author Topic: What is this statement saying?  (Read 1874 times)
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 06, 2020, 01:07:09 AM »

Think of this as a reading comprehension question. Yes, there is a right and a wrong answer. Yes, if you chose the wrong answer on, say, a test, you'd lose a point. No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,281
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2020, 01:24:29 AM »




You can ask this guy.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2020, 01:29:32 AM »

Dule, the people who wrote that clearly never contemplated how the methane emissions of the dairy industrial complex would endanger society due to global warming. Clearly only dairy breeds existing two centuries ago are protected and automatic soft-serve ice cream machines can be banned.
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,573
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2020, 01:37:33 AM »

In this case, a glass of milk= A well regulated militia, balanced breakfast= security of a free state, Keep and own cows= Keep and own arms. The second amendment states: “ 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“. The second amendment essentially states that “A regulated militia” is essential for the “security of a free state”, and due to that fact the “right to bear arms” should not be infringed upon, with “security of a free state” being offered as one of potential many reasons.

It would be the second answer I assume?
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 06, 2020, 01:53:02 AM »

Dule, the people who wrote that clearly never contemplated how the methane emissions of the dairy industrial complex would endanger society due to global warming. Clearly only dairy breeds existing two centuries ago are protected and automatic soft-serve ice cream machines can be banned.

Clever thinking. However, because this is a common core curriculum, you are not allowed to be creative with your answer. You're going to have to retake 7th grade.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2020, 01:56:41 AM »

In this case, a glass of milk= A well regulated militia, balanced breakfast= security of a free state, Keep and own cows= Keep and own arms. The second amendment states: “ 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“. The second amendment essentially states that “A regulated militia” is essential for the “security of a free state”, and due to that fact the “right to bear arms” should not be infringed upon, with “security of a free state” being offered as one of potential many reasons.

It would be the second answer I assume?

Very good. A+, in fact! And thank you for demonstrating how you arrived at that answer for the class.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,801
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2020, 09:15:09 AM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2020, 09:19:39 AM »

Yes, Dule, a plain reading of the Second Amendment does have it mean what the libertarian right says it means. You have to obsess over the first comma to get it to mean something else.

A better question is whether the Constitution should be amended again to reflect the emerging consensus (among the general public, not among politicians and political junkies) in favor of stricter gun laws, but, understandably, nobody wants to have that conversation because going back and amending the Bill of Rights would set such a toxic precedent.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,131
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2020, 09:32:37 AM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

Paraphrasing, slightly, Robert Bork, from his book "The Tempting of America."

There exists among some lawyers and judges a weary cynicism that often finds expression  in the quotation of words attributed to Charles Evans Hughes: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is." Hughes was hardly the first to have made the point. "[W]hoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he who is truly the lawgiver, to all intents and purposes, and not the person who first wrote or spoke them," said Bishop Hoadly in 1717. These statements are sometimes taken to ratify cynicism. They should not be. Nobody familiar with Hughes's career would suppose he meant that power is all. It is essential to bear in mind the distinction between the reality of judicial power and the legitimacy or morality of the use of that power.
It is a truism, but it is not anything more than a truism that, for practical purposes, at any given moment the Constitution is what the Justices say it is. Right or wrong, the statute you petitioned your legislature to enact has suddenly become void just because the Justices say it is. But behind that reality lies another fact just as real, and one with normative meaning: there is a historical Constitution that was understood by those who enacted it to have a meaning of its own. That intended meaning has an existence independent of anything judges may say. It is that meaning the judges ought to utter. If law is more than naked power, it is that meaning the Justices had a moral duty to pronounce. Hoadly and Hughes, far from reconciling us to cynicism, emphasize the heavy responsibility judges bear. Power alone is not sufficient to produce legitimate authority.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2020, 12:37:37 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,801
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2020, 12:50:38 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"
'

My bad, I have a problem getting the two mixed up
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2020, 01:06:27 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"
'

My bad, I have a problem getting the two mixed up

It's fine everybody does. My frustration is far from directed at you, but the fact that the terms have become conflated.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2020, 02:27:01 PM »

There was a broad consensus that the correct answer was the first one before the cow lobby undertook a massive campaign (endowing professorships, getting pieces placed in law reviews, etc.) to redefine the terms starting in the 60s.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,281
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2020, 02:46:13 PM »

There was a broad consensus that the correct answer was the first one before the cow lobby undertook a massive campaign (endowing professorships, getting pieces placed in law reviews, etc.) to redefine the terms starting in the 60s.

It's all the National Cow Association's fault, isn't it?
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2020, 12:26:29 PM »

In United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Second Amendment does not prevent states or individuals from restricting the right to bear arms, so allowing states and individuals to ban people from possessing certain arms.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 17, 2020, 12:30:26 PM »

I genuinely don't know what it means without context, but it's clearly not the former interpretation.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,471
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 17, 2020, 12:31:40 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"

Wrong again; that's original intent, a very rare form of originalism. Most originalists rely on "original understanding."
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,587
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 17, 2020, 07:56:17 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

That is TEXTUALISM gaaahGG

Originalism would include considering what the makers of the test meant for the question to mean, not what "directly....written in the text"

Wrong again; that's original intent, a very rare form of originalism. Most originalists rely on "original understanding."

Well...it's still "originalism" and many people observe that form of originalism, including I believe our very own MarkD. So....not wrong, just not a comprehensive answer. I'm still right in what I was indicated to was textualism.

So, no.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2020, 08:33:35 PM »

Yes, Dule, a plain reading of the Second Amendment does have it mean what the libertarian right says it means. You have to obsess over the first comma to get it to mean something else.

A better question is whether the Constitution should be amended again to reflect the emerging consensus (among the general public, not among politicians and political junkies) in favor of stricter gun laws, but, understandably, nobody wants to have that conversation because going back and amending the Bill of Rights would set such a toxic precedent.

Huh, I didn't notice that this thread had gotten so much activity since I last checked it. In any case, I appreciate the gun control advocates who concede the actual meaning of the Second Amendment while still arguing that it should be changed. In fact, I would be open to that course of action (if it were undertaken with the intention of creating the broadest possible consensus imaginable). Regardless though, this does not change the fact that the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2020, 08:34:55 PM »

No, "reinterpretations" aren't allowed; please engage directly with what is written in the text.

Your assertion that only originalism interpretations are valid is nonsensical.

Uh-oh. Sounds like someone is getting an F on this assignment!
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2020, 09:55:59 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2020, 10:02:15 PM by Gulf Coastal Elite »

the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.
The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2020, 12:24:43 AM »

the people who attempt to change the literal meaning of the text are disingenuous hacks who are imposing their ideology on codified law.
The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2020, 02:16:32 AM »

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.
Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?
Logged
John Dule
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,320
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.57, S: -7.50

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2020, 02:05:29 PM »

The people who insist on a hyper-literal reading of the text are, in this case, the ones attempting to impose their ideology on long-standing law! It would be a disingenuous hack indeed who attempted to read an individual right into a text that 200 years of legal precedent have not discovered.

It is extremely dangerous to stray too far from the literal meaning of the text, and if you do, you had better have some damn concrete evidence that your interpretation better embodies the intent of the law in question.
Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2020, 10:22:27 AM »

Then why did you change "bear" to "own" in your hypothetical? Bearing and owning do not have the same literal meaning, after all, and if we are talking about firearms that distinction may become important. Do you have concrete evidence for why "bear" should be synonymous with "own"?

No-- but then again, I don't have any evidence as to why cows should be synonymous with guns either.
All I am observing here is that your underlying claim — that the Second Amendment is an unambiguous statement that allows for only your interpretation to prevail — relies on your particular subjective definition of each term and how they function together. There is no reason to presume that your interpretation of the language is correct. The definition of the word "bear", which you see as conferring an individual right to carry firearms, is one of many examples where you are relying on your interpretation to foreclose other readings of the text.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 13 queries.