General Discussion

merrily

(45,251 posts)

70. You mean. like the Framers intended corporations to be people?

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:11 PM

Jan 2013

Scalia is excellent at making up crap and claiming it was the intent of the Framers.

As if they all had the same intent anyway. Most of the wording in the Constitution is compromise language.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What The Constitution Explicitly Says About Militias [View all] stopbush Jan 2013 OP

well - 5 justices in the scotus disagree with you - that is all that matters.nt srican69 Jan 2013 #1

Until we replace some of them with rational people... -nt gcomeau Jan 2013 #2

there is a 47% actuarial odds that one conservative judge will die within next 4 years srican69 Jan 2013 #4

THere's a chance of replacing a justice, that's not the same as a a chance of a rational justice HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #8

no this is the probability of replacing one of the 5 conservative srican69 Jan 2013 #42

It's the chance there will be a vacancy HereSince1628 Jan 2013 #44

no..just replacing a conservative judge srican69 Jan 2013 #45

Almost Anyone Is Better Than Scalia... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #54

scalia will not retire in the next 4 ... he hates liberals with a passion and will not let srican69 Jan 2013 #57

Every Election Is Critical... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #58

I expect her and justice stevens to retire this term ... and hopefully one srican69 Jan 2013 #59

Judge Stevens Retired in 2010... KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #60

I meant Stephen breyer ... i am getting old srican69 Jan 2013 #61

Please send lots of pork rinds and cookies to the SCOTUS BlueStreak Jan 2013 #87

creepy Bucky Jan 2013 #52

So once you replace them they can just change the meaning? xoom Jan 2013 #34

What? gcomeau Jan 2013 #41

Is it really that easy? xoom Jan 2013 #56

Oh yay, we're being intentionally obtuse today. gcomeau Jan 2013 #64

I did from the start... I was seeing if you did. I understand completely. xoom Jan 2013 #96

You are mistaken...SCOTUS has said very little about militias... JoeBlowToo Jan 2013 #5

You are correct. For some of those judges to say they are 'strict' about interpreting the Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #14

You mean. like the Framers intended corporations to be people? merrily Jan 2013 #70

Yes, you are wrong. former9thward Jan 2013 #3

But are not all of we "unorganized militia" still subject to oversight stopbush Jan 2013 #6

No, that is why they call it "unorganized". former9thward Jan 2013 #7

Silly, quit thinking that the "Well-Regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment really means anything Hugabear Jan 2013 #9

The preamble actually affirms that view. N/T beevul Jan 2013 #12

You don't know what the word "regulated" meant in the 1700s, do you? former9thward Jan 2013 #20

Sure we do...and UNorganized ain't part of it. jmg257 Jan 2013 #31

I don't don't who "we" is. former9thward Jan 2013 #32

That is grammatically impossible. Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #33

Sure OK, I agree - "we" obviously doesn't mean you. jmg257 Jan 2013 #36

From Federalist 29 -- A Hamilton. immoderate Jan 2013 #47

'Trained under the authority of the State'...not quite on their own time. jmg257 Jan 2013 #51

So what does "provide himself with a good musket..." mean? immoderate Jan 2013 #66

Just that...It means they must provide themselves with a musket (pistol, sword) for militia duty. jmg257 Jan 2013 #68

It didn't exist in the 1700s, yet it's in the Constitution. NoGOPZone Jan 2013 #39

The links between Organization and Regulations and Well Regulated continue... jmg257 Jan 2013 #55

A 1903 law doesn't define terms of the 2d Amendment. DirkGently Jan 2013 #17

The "1903 law" remains federal law. former9thward Jan 2013 #19

Right. Your post has zero to do with the 2d Amendment. DirkGently Jan 2013 #30

Once again, entirely incorrect. Benton D Struckcheon Jan 2013 #35

Who is overturning a law or advocating that? former9thward Jan 2013 #77

So what if it remains federal law? It still says zip about the Constitution. merrily Jan 2013 #72

What does a statute enacted in 1903 have to do with what the Constitution means? merrily Jan 2013 #71

The poster I was replying to seemed to think the 2nd A only applies to the National Guard. former9thward Jan 2013 #79

Whatever your opinion is, a 1903 statute has nothing to do with the meaning of a 1789 Constitution. merrily Jan 2013 #82

The statute is a 2013 law. former9thward Jan 2013 #83

A 2013 law has nothing to do with what a 1789 Constitution meant either. merrily Jan 2013 #85

Really don't know your point. former9thward Jan 2013 #94

Your citing a 1903 law to prove your point about a 1789 Constitutional provision is not meaningful. merrily Jan 2013 #95

What made up the militia - lynne Jan 2013 #10

Composition and classes of the federal militia per the United States Code slackmaster Jan 2013 #11

I was speaking of the militia at the time the 2nd amendment was written - lynne Jan 2013 #13

Militia Acts of 1792... gcomeau Jan 2013 #65

You cannot look to a statute adopted after the Constitution to determine what the Constitution means merrily Jan 2013 #74

I would not agree completely. What better way to see the intent of the Constitution jmg257 Jan 2013 #80

My prior post already addressed that. merrily Jan 2013 #81

We will disagree, then. From research it appears the intents are wonderfully in tune jmg257 Jan 2013 #84

If you were correct, there would be no controvery about the meaning of the second amendment, yet merrily Jan 2013 #86

Of course there would be controversy, caused by anyone who wants it mis-read their way. jmg257 Jan 2013 #89

Again, SCOTUS Justices dissented, as did lower court justices. merrily Jan 2013 #90

Exactly...as I said we will disagree, especially since you are now calling me a liar. jmg257 Jan 2013 #93

The question... gcomeau Jan 2013 #92

Thanks for that info. stopbush Jan 2013 #18

State governors slackmaster Jan 2013 #21

Thanks again. stopbush Jan 2013 #22

Yes, I believe your interpretation of the law is correct. Insurrection against a legitimately... slackmaster Jan 2013 #25

Would another purpose of the unorganized militia be stopbush Jan 2013 #26

Yes - the President has the power to call up the militia. jmg257 Jan 2013 #28

Everyone is potentially subject to conscription when the shit hits the fan slackmaster Jan 2013 #37

I was subject to the draft when I was in HS during the Nam years. stopbush Jan 2013 #38

I happen to have been born in the three-month period in 1958, that caused me to miss... slackmaster Jan 2013 #40

The kid who lived behind us got drafted, was sent to Nam stopbush Jan 2013 #43

That statute does not govern what the Constitution means. merrily Jan 2013 #73

"well regulated"... jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

Hamilton goes on to say... immoderate Jan 2013 #49

Unfortunately for Hamilton, they didn't do it his way... jmg257 Jan 2013 #53

Yes. They had to get 'well-regulated' using their own guns. immoderate Jan 2013 #67

Yep - under arms when being trained by the State, and of course armed when called forth jmg257 Jan 2013 #69

I would have changed one thing on your post to:. onethatcares Jan 2013 #15

I also should have written stopbush Jan 2013 #24

Liberal tolerance... wjbarricklow Jan 2013 #48

Troll stopbush Jan 2013 #62

Of course the right applies to individuals...you want to join the Militia, have at it! jmg257 Jan 2013 #63

This is a left board. Why are you here, if you don't like the left? merrily Jan 2013 #75

That is exactly the same way I would interupt it. Auntie Bush Jan 2013 #16

I am sure you are much too polite to interrupt. merrily Jan 2013 #88

For the most part you are right, as I have posted numerous times in numerous threads here. jmg257 Jan 2013 #23

It does say that Progressive dog Jan 2013 #29

what's the difference between a GOVERNMENT-founded, GOVERNMENT-trained, GOVERNMENT-armed, GOVERNMENT bubbayugga Jan 2013 #46

Because amendment 2 isn't tied to militias the way you think it is. beevul Jan 2013 #50

IOW, you did not understand the OP. merrily Jan 2013 #76

It really does not matter, if the second amendment means no limits then it is broken CBGLuthier Jan 2013 #78

"Well regulated" means, well, well regulated. And "well regulated" does not mean no limits. merrily Jan 2013 #91