J. P. Stevens proposes six new constitutional amendments

[badgate]

6. Hell no

Yeah, God forbid the 2nd Amendment's text actually be accurate to its intent, thereby keeping Americans from continuing with the gross misconception that this amendment is their free pass to own a gun.

I disagree that such was the original intent of the second amendment. At the time the militia was cumpulsory and there was a long history of such local militias being a check on the power of the national authority.

Right-Wing Mythology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you read the Riot Act?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the perfect time for you to bring up the Boston Massacre.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Limit the power of the federal government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many founders only believed in "god" in the abstract, and when they spoke of it all they really meant was that these rights were naturally endowed in civil society. If they saw modern America they would never have used the word "god" because they've seen the consequences.

Incidentally, did you intentionally not capitalize "god"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the record I got that question right without cheating!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Native Americans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe that what I said contests this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

6. Hell no

Yeah, God forbid the 2nd Amendment's text actually be accurate to its intent, thereby keeping Americans from continuing with the gross misconception that this amendment is their free pass to own a gun.

I disagree that such was the original intent of the second amendment. At the time the militia was cumpulsory and there was a long history of such local militias being a check on the power of the national authority.

Right-Wing Mythology.

Which part?

I am fairly certain they were cumpulsory and it is undeniable that the Kings of England made certain decisions based on the size of the militias and the reluctance to tangle with them at a time when the Army was rather small. It still happened of course but it was a limiting factor nonetheless.

Also the militias served to check the ability of the English to enforce the Intolerable Acts and until Lexington and Concord, the British actually would actually avoid conflict. Is that not a limiting factor?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you read the Riot Act?

With every right comes certain responsbilities, hence why I support background checks. There has to some limiting principle, but in general though the right is guarranteed to protect people from being disarmed by the state. My point was to bring up the context to illustrate what their contemporay history was at the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is the perfect time for you to bring up the Boston Massacre.

Actually no. The examples citied, involved the militia units turning their weapons on the state. Two decades later, it is enshrined in the Constitution that for the sake of such existing, the people shall not be disarmed. In both MA 1774 and 1775, as well as in England under James II, the national authority tried to disarm the militias.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Limit the power of the federal government.

OF course, we are making some progress I see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many founders only believed in "god" in the abstract, and when they spoke of it all they really meant was that these rights were naturally endowed in civil society. If they saw modern America they would never have used the word "god" because they've seen the consequences.

Incidentally, did you intentionally not capitalize "god"?

Same idea basically, the government didn't distribute freedom that was natural. Its job was to secure its people and in the mode least detrimental to those freedoms.

I frankly didn't consider the matter and was in hurry at the time. My expertize is not in religion by any means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the record I got that question right without cheating!

It was a rhetorical exercise anyway?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Native Americans.

Who were not even realyl covered by the Constitution at all save maybe with regards to treaties an such forth and thus the second amendment hardly protects against them taking someone's weapons from them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't believe that what I said contests this.

Good to know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Knew you would appreciate that. Our difference is philosophicla and I am nothing if not pragmatic.

[Skill and Chance]

There are those who criticize the Martin-Quinn scores.  Here's a paper that presents some criticism of M-Q and a proposed alternative:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/baileyma/CourtPref_July2012.pdf

I can't speak as to the validity of the proposed alternative, but that M-Q indicates that the Court in 1973, the year of both Roe and Furman, was more conservative that it would be in any year for the next three and a half decades certainly indicates there are some flaws in M-Q that should keep anyone from accepting it as a wholly accurate measure to the court's ideological tilt.

Yes, ranking the Court that was constantly overruling the New Deal as more liberal than the Warren Court or even the Burger Court is just weird.