TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Which side wants to expand and pack the Supreme Court because they don't like not having control?
NJ Governor Phil Murphy floated the idea of just ignoring the Supreme Court. That might be the new play.
-
61
-
Just sayin\'... wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
The new IRS funding is being used to go after 1) tips, 2) gig workers, and 3) contractors who use Venmo. Not "the rich."
Says who (besides you)? Not an argument here, just curious about your source.
I will say that the prospect of actually having someone answer the damned phone is attractive.
New tip reporting program:
Gig workers:
Now while were at it, what source do we have that they'll target rich people other than wishful thinking? It appears that's not where the positive ROI is, then or now.
As for calling the IRS, I haven't done it myself recently but I've heard it's not too bad compared to other customer service hotlines.41 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
"No, I don’t want reality!"
If those are public-school educators, it would be illegal for them to teach children the "Jesus Loves Me" lyrics...except as a literature lesson, which would be unlikely if the kids are in primary school.
00 -
El Runkin wrote:
ConLaw Expert wrote:
nah. The Dems, if anything, are attacking this invented right of using guns for any purpose except what THE CONSTITUTION mentions. Funny how you always leave off the milita part. There nothing regarding the personal use of arms....nothing, nada, zip. The legal idea was created in the last 20 years. We don't have to divine some hidden intent about how the founding father really meant an individual right, just read the text. Something you so called constitution lovers fail to do.
Even with that nonsense, Scalia himself declared that 2A rights are not unlimited (the current GOP position).
Hold on there, Mr. so-called "Legal Beagle." Isn't the linked case (Heller) the leading SCOFUS case on the association of the prefatory "militia" and operative "bear arms" clauses of the Second Amendment? The majority makes a compelling case that the prefatory clause recites a non-limiting purpose -- the need for militias -- that makes the operative clause -- protecting an individual's right to bear arms -- necessary for the formation of the aforementioned militias. It's very crafty. You can't form a militia if you don't have a goddam gun in the first place, is the reasoning in laygoon's terms.
Even if it's not compelling to you, it is the law of the land, so you're stuck with it. Arguments like you just made that the Second Amendment says a citizen can only bear arms as part of a militia have been meritless since 2008 when Heller was decided. 15 years is a long time to be carrying around a legal falsehood, Chaucer.
Lol, unironic El Runkin W.
The idea that a right is conditional on joining a state-run militia is absurd - that's not a "right" anyone would care about that would ever need to be written down. The 2nd amendment has always been understood to be an individual right, and was based on other legal rights at the time in Vermont and England. 45 out of 50 state constitutions have their own equivalent of the 2nd Amendment, most of them go back to the state's founding and don't mention a "militia."
43 -
20
-
Hardloper wrote:
El Runkin wrote:
Hold on there, Mr. so-called "Legal Beagle." Isn't the linked case (Heller) the leading SCOFUS case on the association of the prefatory "militia" and operative "bear arms" clauses of the Second Amendment? The majority makes a compelling case that the prefatory clause recites a non-limiting purpose -- the need for militias -- that makes the operative clause -- protecting an individual's right to bear arms -- necessary for the formation of the aforementioned militias. It's very crafty. You can't form a militia if you don't have a goddam gun in the first place, is the reasoning in laygoon's terms.
Even if it's not compelling to you, it is the law of the land, so you're stuck with it. Arguments like you just made that the Second Amendment says a citizen can only bear arms as part of a militia have been meritless since 2008 when Heller was decided. 15 years is a long time to be carrying around a legal falsehood, Chaucer.
Lol, unironic El Runkin W.
The idea that a right is conditional on joining a state-run militia is absurd - that's not a "right" anyone would care about that would ever need to be written down. The 2nd amendment has always been understood to be an individual right, and was based on other legal rights at the time in Vermont and England. 45 out of 50 state constitutions have their own equivalent of the 2nd Amendment, most of them go back to the state's founding and don't mention a "militia."
absolutely incorrect. Why, because they didn't spell that out in the constitution. I mean, you can jump through all the hoops you want but they put a perfunctory clause in for a reason. it wasn't so future citizens could play a guessing game about intent.
Yeah other laws may not mention "milita" but who cares? the US constituion does. CHECK MATE.
12 -
El Runkin wrote:
ConLaw Expert wrote:
nah. The Dems, if anything, are attacking this invented right of using guns for any purpose except what THE CONSTITUTION mentions. Funny how you always leave off the milita part. There nothing regarding the personal use of arms....nothing, nada, zip. The legal idea was created in the last 20 years. We don't have to divine some hidden intent about how the founding father really meant an individual right, just read the text. Something you so called constitution lovers fail to do.
Even with that nonsense, Scalia himself declared that 2A rights are not unlimited (the current GOP position).
Hold on there, Mr. so-called "Legal Beagle." Isn't the linked case (Heller) the leading SCOFUS case on the association of the prefatory "militia" and operative "bear arms" clauses of the Second Amendment? The majority makes a compelling case that the prefatory clause recites a non-limiting purpose -- the need for militias -- that makes the operative clause -- protecting an individual's right to bear arms -- necessary for the formation of the aforementioned militias. It's very crafty. You can't form a militia if you don't have a goddam gun in the first place, is the reasoning in laygoon's terms.
Even if it's not compelling to you, it is the law of the land, so you're stuck with it. Arguments like you just made that the Second Amendment says a citizen can only bear arms as part of a militia have been meritless since 2008 when Heller was decided. 15 years is a long time to be carrying around a legal falsehood, Chaucer.
I'm not making the law, the US constitution is. I'm simply relaying that fact.
They got it wrong. Plain and simple. The falsehood is theirs, not mine. 15 years of an invented right vs. 230 years of otherwise is fairly minimal.
Yes it is the "law of the land". Bad laws happen. Separate but equal was the "law of the land" too. Your appeal to authority is pretty shameless.
02 -
ConLaw Expert wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
Lol, unironic El Runkin W.
The idea that a right is conditional on joining a state-run militia is absurd - that's not a "right" anyone would care about that would ever need to be written down. The 2nd amendment has always been understood to be an individual right, and was based on other legal rights at the time in Vermont and England. 45 out of 50 state constitutions have their own equivalent of the 2nd Amendment, most of them go back to the state's founding and don't mention a "militia."
absolutely incorrect. Why, because they didn't spell that out in the constitution. I mean, you can jump through all the hoops you want but they put a perfunctory clause in for a reason. it wasn't so future citizens could play a guessing game about intent.
Yeah other laws may not mention "milita" but who cares? the US constituion does. CHECK MATE.
The rights listed in the bill of rights didn't actually *need* to be spelled out, because they're already implied. That's why Madison didn't want to include them in the original constitution. Why care about state constitutions? Because they reflect a 300+ year tradition of individual gun ownership which is relevant when you're interpretting the constitution, and because you're trying to argue individual gun ownership is some new theory invented in 2008.
21 -
ConLaw Expert wrote:
El Runkin wrote:
Hold on there, Mr. so-called "Legal Beagle." Isn't the linked case (Heller) the leading SCOFUS case on the association of the prefatory "militia" and operative "bear arms" clauses of the Second Amendment? The majority makes a compelling case that the prefatory clause recites a non-limiting purpose -- the need for militias -- that makes the operative clause -- protecting an individual's right to bear arms -- necessary for the formation of the aforementioned militias. It's very crafty. You can't form a militia if you don't have a goddam gun in the first place, is the reasoning in laygoon's terms.
Even if it's not compelling to you, it is the law of the land, so you're stuck with it. Arguments like you just made that the Second Amendment says a citizen can only bear arms as part of a militia have been meritless since 2008 when Heller was decided. 15 years is a long time to be carrying around a legal falsehood, Chaucer.
I'm not making the law, the US constitution is. I'm simply relaying that fact.
They got it wrong. Plain and simple. The falsehood is theirs, not mine. 15 years of an invented right vs. 230 years of otherwise is fairly minimal.
Yes it is the "law of the land". Bad laws happen. Separate but equal was the "law of the land" too. Your appeal to authority is pretty shameless.
I don't think your criticism of "appeal to authority" is a very good one. First of all, we are talking about a legal issue in a legal system that has a final arbiter, right or wrong, of legal disputes -- in fact, very specific legal disputes of the kind we are discussing. So pointing out what that final arbiter says is not an unreasonable or shameless fallacy of the kind you are suggesting.
And I wasn't really appealing to authority either. You seem to have an emphatic and absolute view that there is no individual right to bear arms in the Constitution. I pointed out to you what I think most reasonable people would agree, even if they disagree with the final decision, are compelling legal arguments in Heller for the individual right to bear arms in the context of that prefatory "militia" clause. I haven't read it in awhile, and I'm not about to do so now in order to discuss it with someone who has clearly never read it, but I believe in Heller they suggested the two clauses could be transposed (back in the day, things were often written in the backwards/passive 2nd amendment style) for better readability as to its intent. Something like "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, as a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state." It's compelling, as were the SCOFUS other arguments.
Also, I wasn't really appealing to authority given the context of how this arose. YOU were the one chasing down some guy for failing to mention the militia clause ("Funny how you always leave off the militia part") as if he made some deliberate and devious omission, when there was no reason at all for him to be raising the militia clause because it's well settled law for 15 fvcking years now that it doesn't affect an individual's right to bear arms. I merely reminded you of that.
10 -
I would grade this paper an F.
04 -
ConLaw Expert wrote:
I would grade this paper an F.
Awe. poor thing. that darn Constitution huh?
impressive fall today for your boy Biden. Couldn't get up by himself of course, the good news is he prolly already forgot he fell and wondering where the bruises came from
33 -
Hardloper wrote:
ConLaw Expert wrote:
absolutely incorrect. Why, because they didn't spell that out in the constitution. I mean, you can jump through all the hoops you want but they put a perfunctory clause in for a reason. it wasn't so future citizens could play a guessing game about intent.
Yeah other laws may not mention "milita" but who cares? the US constituion does. CHECK MATE.
The rights listed in the bill of rights didn't actually *need* to be spelled out, because they're already implied. That's why Madison didn't want to include them in the original constitution. Why care about state constitutions? Because they reflect a 300+ year tradition of individual gun ownership which is relevant when you're interpretting the constitution, and because you're trying to argue individual gun ownership is some new theory invented in 2008.
Pretty weird how the Bill of Right was actually spelled out, then. And madison was one guy of many. clearly others thought we needed it put those rights in there and qualify them with clauses.
And many states clearly spelled out a right to bear arms for whatever reason, 2A did not.
01 -
Noyankee wrote:
ConLaw Expert wrote:
I would grade this paper an F.
Awe. poor thing. that darn Constitution huh?
impressive fall today for your boy Biden. Couldn't get up by himself of course, the good news is he prolly already forgot he fell and wondering where the bruises came from
red herring fallacy.
p.s. you forgot to switch names when defending yourself as someone else.
02 -
Noyankee wrote:
ConLaw Expert wrote:
I would grade this paper an F.
Awe. poor thing. that darn Constitution huh?
impressive fall today for your boy Biden. Couldn't get up by himself of course, the good news is he prolly already forgot he fell and wondering where the bruises came from
He's better off in a wheelchair & a nursing home.
#FJB
63 -
ConLaw Expert wrote:
I would grade this paper an F.
That is seriously lame.
00 -
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
Noyankee wrote:
Awe. poor thing. that darn Constitution huh?
impressive fall today for your boy Biden. Couldn't get up by himself of course, the good news is he prolly already forgot he fell and wondering where the bruises came from
He's better off in a wheelchair & a nursing home.
#FJB
This is so embarrassing for our country. What a joke.
42 -
He's senile, too old, too tired and not fit for POTUS.
32 -
Hardloper wrote:
El Runkin wrote:
Hold on there, Mr. so-called "Legal Beagle." Isn't the linked case (Heller) the leading SCOFUS case on the association of the prefatory "militia" and operative "bear arms" clauses of the Second Amendment? The majority makes a compelling case that the prefatory clause recites a non-limiting purpose -- the need for militias -- that makes the operative clause -- protecting an individual's right to bear arms -- necessary for the formation of the aforementioned militias. It's very crafty. You can't form a militia if you don't have a goddam gun in the first place, is the reasoning in laygoon's terms.
Even if it's not compelling to you, it is the law of the land, so you're stuck with it. Arguments like you just made that the Second Amendment says a citizen can only bear arms as part of a militia have been meritless since 2008 when Heller was decided. 15 years is a long time to be carrying around a legal falsehood, Chaucer.
Lol, unironic El Runkin W.
The idea that a right is conditional on joining a state-run militia is absurd - that's not a "right" anyone would care about that would ever need to be written down.
That's a good point. I don't think I've seen that raised before. It seems highly unlikely the drafters would think they needed the Constitution to say the military has the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
21 -
ConLaw Expert wrote:
I would grade this paper an F.
I'm sure you would. I'm sure you've picked your feet in Poughkeepsie too.
But you'd have a hard time criticizing or grading the Heller decision (linked below again), (1) because you've never read it, (2) you never will read it, (3) no one you know has read it, and (4) something else about your abilities and looks.
20 -
wuttttt wrote:
Ghost of Disco Gary wrote:
He's better off in a wheelchair & a nursing home.
#FJB
This is so embarrassing for our country. What a joke.
this is the guy who just outsmarted McCarthy and left him in the dust, you know. And after the meeting McCarthy praised Biden's smarts and energy.
Just so you know. Dark Brandon lives and wins!
This post was edited 54 seconds after it was posted.15
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
Of General Interest
-
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
-
Does not wanting my kids to watch a bisexual threesome at the Olympics make me a bigot?
-
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
-
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out