Re: __ HK MP5 submachine gun Stolen from SWAT cop's personal pickup <= responsible gun ownership? __


"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9986671012EF6jyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
v18ui.5873$vK2.3633@trnddc03:">news:v18ui.5873$vK2.3633@trnddc03:


"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9985CBDA87B3Djyanikkuanet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Scout" <me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
un5ui.2169$zg3.1593@trnddc04:">news:un5ui.2169$zg3.1593@trnddc04:


"Deadrat" <a@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:0H1ui.13111$eY.10513@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jim Bianchi <jimbo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:slrnfbfjvq.koc.jimbo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 18:18:31 -0600, _ Prof. Jonez _ wrote:
Well, you better notify Congress and the U$ Supreme Court,
because somebody forgot to tell them ... LOL!

The USSCt already knows. Else why in at least 92 cases dating
back
to 1820 did they recognise that one of the rights held by free
people was the right to keep and bear arms (as g'teed by the 2nd
Amendment). Why did they mostly ignore the 'militia clause'
entirely when quoting the 2nd? As for congress, gotcha there too,
big fellah:

Public Law No: 109-92 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not
members of a militia or engaged in military service or training,
to keep and bear arms.

"The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed by the
U.S. Senate on July 29, 2005 by a vote of 65-31. On October 20,
2005 it was passed by the House of Representatives 283-144.It was
signed into law on October 26, 2005 by President Bush and became
Public Law 109-92."

Looks like you been zapped again. But don't feel too badly.
It
happens to some of the best gungrabbers..

One would think that gun nutters, who laud the policy of strict
construction, would understand that the "Findings" of 109-92 have
no force of law and indeed, are an implied breach of separation of
powers. Congress may not declare the meaning of the Constitution.
This is a power reserved for the judiciary.

Keeping the 10th Amendment in mind, please indicate the exact clause
of the Constitution which you think grants to the judiciary the sole
power to declare the meaning of the Constitution.




Isn't it necessary to "know the meaning" of the Constitution if one
is tasked with determining whether a law is Constitutional or not?

Didn't say they didn't need to know the meaning of the Constitution.
That is a bit different than what he is claiming in that they have the
SOLE authority to determine that meaning. Personally I always thought
that was the whole purpose of having written law so that EVERYONE
could see the law and understand the meaning of what the law is.


Trouble is,some folks tend to read things into the laws that really are
not
there,in order to suit their own view of things.(like the 2nd Amendment
and
bogus "well-regulated militia" restrictions on the RKBA of the People)
Thus,somebody has to decide what the lawmakers actually intended.

The people decide that meaning. That meaning is based on the langauge used
and it's meaning. That a few people are unable, unwilling, or incapable of
reading the language used doesn't alter it's meaning for the rest of us. Nor
does it allow a portion of government to ignore that meaning and invent it's
own because people like you feel they get to decide the meaning of the
language.

The federal government is bound by the language of the Constitution, and if
they find themselves unable to determine the meaning of that language then
they should put the question to the people, since it is WE who are the
masters of government and tell them what it is they can and can not do.


That goes for the Constitution,too.Of course,the Executive Branch does not
have to go along with(enforce) improper interpretations;

Agreed, however, for them to do so MUST necessitate them to have the ability
to INDEPENDENTLY decide the meaning of the Constitution and not limit
themselves to a meaning invented by one branch.

I've read that that
has occurred in the past.It forces Congress and the USSC to go back and
take another look.

Yep, today however, it has become a backscratching circle with no branch of
government willing to upset the apple cart and lose the powers they have
assumed but were never granted.

That's the point of the Separation of Powers,so no single
branch such as the Judiciary can have control over the others.

Yet you attempt to tell me they have the SOLE authority to determine the
meaning of the Constitution. How does this agree with any ideal of
Seperation of Powers. Because I can tell you that if the meaning is left up
to me to decide then I have total and absolute control since I can come up
with any meaning that suits me and everyone else is bound by that meaning.
Isn't the way it works, nor the way it is meant to work. We have a written
code of law because it allows EVERYONE to see the law, know what it is, and
understand the meaning of the law.


I will simply note that in the end his argument is that he can not
contest the validity of what I have to say, only that the Courts have
not acted on it.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net


.

Relevant Pages
Loading