Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I

"Herb Martin" <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:481a1737$0$5139$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Chad" <cbstun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:481a040b$0$13944$afc38c87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Steve Krulick" <krulick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cRUQj.496$Q06.37@xxxxxxxxxxx
ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:02:26 GMT, Steve Krulick <krulick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:22:22 GMT, Steve Krulick <krulick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

ozarkheart@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 06:12:01 GMT, Steve Krulick
<krulick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

snip
THAT IS WHY BOTH terms are used! Sorry, but THE PEOPLE in the
Const ALWAYS refers to the enfranchised body politic in its
collective and political capacity
Please explain to me the 4th Amendment "people": The right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Sure, but you won't accept or understand it, because this is beyond
your limited comprehension:.
LOL So you start with an insult.
But it's true, as your own response proves! I said you wouldn't
comprehend it, and you haven't.

Indeed I have

So you blatantly assert. But your answers betray you. AS does snipping
away what's inconvenient for you to deal with!


I bet you didn't REALLY read it anyway! I bet you just skimmed it and
made random comments AS IF you'd read it! But if you DID read it, you
DIDN'T understand it, because your comments clearly show that!

And, reading on, you still haven't told me just how the 4th Amendment
does not protect an individual right.
Who said it didn't? See, you just don't understand WHAT it says!

Briefly, I'll try. The right ONLY applies to the PEOPLE CLASS, but is
DISTRIBUTIVE to those members, because the context shows it does. So,
INDIVIDUAL members of THE PEOPLE CLASS can exercise and claim the
right, but NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHATSOEVER CAN!

Never claimed that "ALL" individuals can claim the right.

Then, by DEFINITION, it CAN'T BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! BY DEFINITION, AN
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT is one that ALL individuals can claim!

Thanks for confirming that you were in error and that you now agree with
me!

There are
many "classes" of people who have forfeited their rights.

OH, how did "foreigners" like Verdugo "forfeit" their 4th Amen rights?
They didn't forfeit them; they simply never HAD THEM!

LOL! Gad, you're digging yourself deeper by the minute!

Did KIDS forfeit their 4th Amen rights? NO, they simply don't GET THEM
until they reach majority age!

And you use "people" when you should say "persons"! There's only ONE
CLASS of THE people! That's the enfranchised body politic as a singular
entity! See, I told you you didn't and wouldn't understand!

So, did felons "forfeit" their right to Freedom of Religion? No? Because
THAT right IS an individual right, and accrues to ALL individuals, even
felons!

Did felons forfeit their 5th Amen rights to a fair trial? NO? Why is
THAT? Because THAT right IS an individual right, and accrues to ALL
individuals, even felons! THAT is why IT is an individual right and
freedom from searches ISN'T, or else felons and kids could sue over
"searches" of their persons and effects!

Is it beginning to sink in that what *I* and the Founders and the COURTS
have been saying is consistent, and what you have been saying is simply
untenable nonsense?

For a right to BE an "individual right" it must apply to EVERY
individual without exception at all times! Trial by jury of peers is
one; so is freedom of speech. Oh, there are various regulations that
limit their absoluteness, but, then, who said ANY right was absolute?
You still can't slander; that's NOT a protected right of free speech.
Nor is incitement to riot, or crying "Fire" in a crowded theater NOT on
fire!

But the 4th still remains an ***individual*** protected right.

Why, because you continue to blatantly assert it without ONE shred of
evidence and in contradiction to ALL the evidence and logic *I*
presented?

See, I told you you couldn't comprehend it!

One more time:

Was Vedugo an individual? YES! Did he have a 4th Amen right? NO!

Hence it CAN'T be "an individual right"!

The courts said HE DIDN'T! Did he "forfeit" any right for any reason?
NO, he simply was NOT a member of THE PEOPLE CLASS that had the right,
so it was NOT distributive to HIM.

Again, the right is a right that only applies to that collective entity
known as THE PEOPLE, but, in context, as it makes no sense otherwise,
the protection accrues to INDIVIDUAL members OF that Class, and to THEM
ONLY. So, it's a collectively guaranteed right, distributively applied
ONLY to individuals of that particular collective class.

Get it? Bet not!

Otherwise, a foreigner like Verdugo could, but Rehnquist rightly
pointed out that as he was NOT a member of THE PEOPLE CLASS, he could
NOT claim the right, even though he IS an individual, but NOT AN
INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE.

See, an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT is one that accrues to EVERY SINGLE
INDIVIDUAL.

Negatory to that.

Why, because YOU blatantly assert it with gainsaying?

How about some AUTHORITATIVE ORIGINAL SOURCE CITE that supports your
claim? You know, like a SCotUS case that overturned Verdugo! Oh, right
that decision is still settled case law!

But then if you go and continue to make up your own definitions contrary
to accepted legal understanding and rulings, there's no hope for talking
with you, as you are using an idiosyncratic language that is alien to
the courts and the authors of our organic law!

But *I* already knew that!

Freedom of Speech or Religion is an individual right, because there's
NO restriction on the right

Sure there are.

Sigh. I'm not talking about restrictions TO the right, as in slander or
libel being restrictions on freedom of speech and press; I'm talking
about a LIMITING restriction on WHO the right applies to!

There's no QUALIFIER on the individual rights IN their expression. It
JUST SAYS Freedom of Speech or right of habeas corpus; it doesn't LIMIT
the right to THE PEOPLE CLASS, as do some other rights, or to
"homeowner" as the 3rd Amen does.

See, I knew you didn't really read my posts! I went through ALL that
over and over, and you didn't catch it!

IF there's no qualifier as to WHOM the right applies to, it's for
EVERYONE, hence ALL individuals, hence, by definition, AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT!

IF there's a qualifier, in this several cases THE PEOPLE, then the
right, as Rehnquist said, "extends ONLY TO THE PEOPLE," and NOT to
everyone, hence, even if the right is APPLIED to CERTAIN particular
individuals, it is NOT an "individual right"!

I don't know how to make it simpler than that, but I bet you STILL don't
get it!

Now, as I have banged my head against the wall for the final time, I'm
heading for bed and putting this silly exercise in trying to educate
numbskulls behind me.

Finally, TA TA!

Lee, Bob, I'm turning this zoo back to YOUR care and feeding!


! Hence, it is for EVERYONE. But, as Rehnquist points out, the rights
of the 4th Amen extend ONLY to THE PEOPLE!


This guy's "I'm smarter than you" style makes it hard to read his posts
with too much empathy, but he does make a strong case for his opinion
that the 2nd speaks of collective and not individual rights.

No he does not.

There are NO "collective rights" -- all RIGHTS originate in the
indidivual.


Do you have a basis for that apart from your own interpetation? Are you not
just quiblling about semantics really? Does it really matter if a collective
relies on it's indivual's rights to establish it's own in this context?

If this is such an absolute unarguable point as you suggest, then how do you
explain the legal minds behind DCs case laying out this aspect in their
brief?

They may not have brought it up during the limited time for oral argument
(which I admit surprised me) but it is still there in their brief to be
considered.

You may not agree with the concept, but you are far from being in a position
to try and stifle opposing discussion by simply claiming you are absolutely
correct.

I'm sure you have heard the phrase "the community's right" many times
before, the concept isn't foriegn or made up conveniently, it's in common
usage.

IF the 2nd refers to The People that way or not may be debatable, but that's
it, the concept of a collective's rights clearly does exist.



The "militia" of the Constituion is the POLITY, the citizens able and
willing
to defend themselves, their community, the country, and the Constitution.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is embedded in the Bill of Rights which
enumerates and offers explicit additional protection for a number of the
MOST ESSENTIAL individual rights.

The People throughout the Constiution means each of us; it is used instead
of the awkward plural "every person" or "persons".


The word person or persons appears over 50 times in the document.

I don't think they found the word too awkward to use where needed.



The EXACT SAME words are used by states in many cases to protect
an individual right (not to grant themselves additional powers) and in
other cases very similar wording is used for the same purpose.

The Right of the PEOPLE is in no sense the State as in a prosecution where
the "people prosecute the accused".


No sense the same? I tend to disagree and think that usage, which has been
around as long as the constitution (as far as I am aware), is a great
example of how the phrase "The People" can be used to describe a community
or collective.


The RIGHT(s) existed PRIOR to the 2nd Amendment, and the Consitution,
they exist and existed wheither the 2nd Amendment exists or not.

Do you think that you must "join a club" to Peacably Assemble, or to
Vote in a general election (i.e., othter than in an election for that
club or
party only), or have work for NBC, CNN, NYTimes to have the
Freedom of the Press or Speech?


I'm not sure I get your point here.

Do you assume I think people must be a militia member to enjoy any RKBA?



These are ALL individual rights. The right to keep and bear arms is
arguably the OLDEST right, and is clearly the most important of all
since NO RIGHTS have ever been secured nor protected unless
people of good will carried arms and then were willing to share those
rights with others.

I can see myself using some of that at a later date :)

Then you will be excoriated as intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

These arguments are sophomoric at best and provide comfort only
to the IGNORANT and DISHONEST.


I'm not sure you mean to do this antagonistically Herb but you have thrown
quite a few derogatory words my way so far for some reason. :(

Imagine a right that they government gives itself so that it can take it
away from the "people" -- this is NOT the way the US Constitution
works.

No one in the Heller oral arguments, neither the Justices nor even
the attorney for DC, took the so-called "collective" right theory
seriously -- that was dismissed as ridiculous on its face.


How was it dismissed as ridiculous farce? The DC lawyer simply did not bring
it up during the oral arguments. (and you accuse me of using propaganda
speak!) :p

I would agree that it probably wasn't bought up as it was seen as a loser by
DC in the end though.

Sadly that does lessen the usefulness of any debate on the matter here too.
I hope SCOTUS make some mention of this aspect in their ruling as I think
it's an interesting angle that is worthy of SC interpretation/comment.


Chad



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... They didn't forfeit them; ... Did KIDS forfeit their 4th Amen rights? ... did felons "forfeit" their right to Freedom of Religion? ... protection accrues to INDIVIDUAL members OF that Class, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... So, INDIVIDUAL members of THE PEOPLE CLASS can exercise and claim the right, but NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS WHATSOEVER CAN! ... many "classes" of people who have forfeited their rights. ... They didn't forfeit them; ... THAT is why IT is an individual right and freedom from searches ISN'T, or else felons and kids could sue over "searches" of their persons and effects! ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... They didn't forfeit them; ... Did KIDS forfeit their 4th Amen rights? ... did felons "forfeit" their right to Freedom of Religion? ... protection accrues to INDIVIDUAL members OF that Class, ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: does google have a filter?
    ... Understandably so, but only in America. ... You forfeit those rights once ... They have no freedom to ignore. ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... Otherwise, a foreigner like Verdugo could, but Rehnquist rightly pointed out that as he was NOT a member of THE PEOPLE CLASS, he could NOT claim the right, even though he IS an individual, but NOT AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE PEOPLE. ... But, as Rehnquist points out, the rights of the 4th Amen extend ONLY to THE PEOPLE! ... How would an 80-year-old black woman from Haiti having an "individual right" to "own and carry guns" further the security of a free state to have a well-regulated militia, when such a person would be FOUR WAYS prohibited from SERVING in the militia or VOTING for the legislature that organizes and controls it? ... OR, and this is where the BoR comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or GUARANTEED by the Constitution! ...
    (talk.politics.guns)