Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Barack Obama and the Second Amendment

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein has unearthed a disturbing set of proposals offered by then-state Senator Barack Obama in 1999 regarding the regulation of privately owned firearms.  The followig quote is from the December 13, 1999 edition of The Chicago Defender:

Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home. [!!!]

He’s proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for “antique” weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

He’s also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who’ve passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

He’s proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He’s also banning the sale of ‘junk” handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.

Obama is requiring that all people working at a gun dealer undergo a criminal background check. He’s also asking that gun manufacturers be required to develop safety measures that permit only the original owner of the firearm to operate the weapon purchased.

Additionally, he wants an increase of the funds for schools to teach anger management skills for youth between the ages of 5-13. Obama is also seeking to increase the federal taxes by 500 percent on the sale of firearm, ammunition [sic]—weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths.

In even the most modest metropolitan or suburban area, it would be next to impossible to find a storefront that was more than 5 miles from either a school or a park, so this proposal would put many legitimate dealers effectively out of business entirely.

Increasing federal taxes 500% is clearly meant to discourage and punish gun buyers.  But once again, those effected would be the law-abiding citizens.  Meanwhile, as any diligent 1st year econ student will tell you, raising prices on a commodity also has the effect of encouraging the illicit, black market sales of that commodity… black market sales which in this case would be to the criminals these proposals are supposed to prevent in the first place.

Mr. Obama may bill himself as an agent of change and a unifier.  But the reality is that the direction of the change he would foster is clearly hard to the left.

Think about this for a moment: If a conservative candidate had advocated policies as blithely and callously contemptuous of the First Amendment as Obama’s are toward the Second, the howls of indignation from the media alone would be dangerous to one’s hearing.  No matter what the media tells us, John McCain should have no trouble winning against someone as radically leftwing as Obama in November.

Comments

Almost all liberals and even a number of conservatives, including one Front Page contributor to SA have a causual disregard for the sanctity of the United States Constitution and the critical nature of original intent to our liberty.

Either the Founding Father’s were able to say exactly what they meant or we cannot trust anything they enshrined in that precious document. If McCain- Feingold can legislatively amend the Bill of Rights restricting my Free Political Speech Rights absent the Amendment process; if Governors or Mayors like Rudy can modify the 2nd Amendment at will, outside the Amendment Process, if the Judiciary can invent new rights like Roe v Wade, and if O’Conner and even Justice McCracken believe our Constitution should be subjected to International Law, then no one should have any complaints whatsoever about what Obama proposed, he has not gone one step further than all these other anti-Constitutionalists I’ve mentioned.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 02:02 pm

Justice McCracken believe our Constitution should be subjected to International Law

Neiman, go refill your prescription.

You are certifiable.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 03:17 pm
Avatar for Lestat

critical nature of original intent to our liberty.

You pretend that the founding fathers were some monolithic force and that they had a single original intent.  It’s not true.  The Founding Fathers had great disagreement about how things should work.  Many opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought that we enshrined only some rights that later generations would claim that these were the only protected rights.  And that was not their intent. 

It is clear that the 2nd amendment was created to protect weapons of war, to allow us to protect ourselves against our own government or foreign invading forces.  The original intent was not for us to protect ourselves against crime.  Handguns are not weapons of war.  So maybe the original intent of the constitution is not to protect those.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 03:17 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Justice McCracken believe our Constitution should be subjected to International Law

According to the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land.  Maybe Justicde McCraken knows more than you.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 03:19 pm

From the landmark SCOTUS case The Paquete Habana:

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of eivilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their authors concerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law really is. Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163 , 164 S., 214, 215, 40 L. ed. 95, 108, 125, 126, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 139.

Sorry Neiman, I shouldn’t have impugned your sanity. I apologize.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 03:35 pm

McCracken is just irritated at me, as uual, because I oppose his malicious disregard for the U.S. Constitution. We are thereby, as regards the Constitution, enemies!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The following is my arguments to the issue only, I am not attacking you or your beliefs, while you are free to attack me and my beliefs at will.

So, ‘the people’ above are only the ‘people’ if they are in the national guard or U.S. military? Okay! Please show me, so I can fight against individual firearm ownership, in the documents of the Founding Father’s wherein that definition, the clear intent, rather than being the people (individual citizens) having an absolute right to keep and bear arms, it only and always means a state sanctioned military force. You appear to be saying that ‘people’ only means an organized, state or federal military force? That pretty much rules out our being able to resist the tyranny of the government, doesn’t it? Thus, we must apply that exact same definition every time the word ‘people’ is used in the Constitution, right? I mean people cannot mean military one place, but mean something entirely different everywhere else, can it? So, when the Declaration of Independence says “We the people,” that means only people in uniform (state controlled militias), right?

Treaties are the supreme law of the land? Therefore, treaties, if they are ’supreme‘ by that definiton they must be of greater authority than the Constitution itself, right? So, I guess every time SCOTUS sits to judge a law, they should apply international treaties/laws before they consider the Constitution?

However, not to offend you or Justice McCracken, my point was that the Constitution cannot be subservient to the International Treaties, therefore SCOTUS can only judge whether or not a treaty conforms to the Constitution, not the other way around. According to your doctrine, as I understand it, whenever we enter into an international treaty it amends the Constitution, I simply disagree.

Lastly, “You pretend that the founding fathers were some monolithic force and that they had a single original intent.  It’s not true.”

Then, if the words in the Constitution do not mean exactly what they say, it cannot ever be trusted in any shape, manner or form to mean anything at all, we can never trust in it to protect our liberty as citizens; it is a liberal, Democrat, ever changing document subject to the whims of the party in power. Okay, but that is not how I read the Constitution.

The broad topic of constitutional law deals with the interpretation and implementation of the United States Constitution (As the Constitution is the foundation of the United States, constitutional law deals with some of the fundamental relationships within our society. This includes relationships among the states, the states and the federal government, the three branches (The Executive, Legislature, Judiciary) of the federal government, and the rights of the individual in relation to both federal and state government. The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution. Consequently, study of Constitutional Law focuses heavily on Supreme Court rulings. 

I should add that in my opinion, Article Six, regarding Supremacy and includes International Treaties is being misinterpreted by many here. It meant the the Constitution and any Treaties it entered into would be supreme over the individual states; that is, the states were subject to obey and/or abide by such federal law or treaties. It never meant that SCOTUS should appeal to international treaties/law as a means of interpreting what our Constitution should mean. For instance, if France rules private gun ownership to be illegal and immoral, SCOTUS may not use that international law as a means of interpreting our Second Amendment.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 03:58 pm

Sorry Neiman, I shouldn’t have impugned your sanity. I apologize.

Of course that is exactly what you meant to do and are still doing, so your are lying, correct?

A. A Supreme Court decision by itself, if it violates the Constitution, is not valid and we are not bound to obey its ruling.

B. Article Six DOES NOT in any way, shape, manner or form allow the SCOTUS to use international laws and treaties as a means of interpreting our Constitution, which is what O’Connor and it appears you believe. It only made it clear that once such treaties between the U.S. and others were approved by Congress and accepetd by SCOTUS as not violating our Constitution, they were to be obeyed and enforced by every state in our nation.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:03 pm

I shall defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic(you).


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:04 pm

Lestat said:

The original intent was not for us to protect ourselves against crime. Handguns are not weapons of war.  So maybe the original intent of the constitution is not to protect those.

are you sure about that? 

Thomas Jefferson:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and
better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (1764 Letter and speech from T.
Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari)

John Adams:

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self
defense.” (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

While it is often hard to verify quotes, such as this one attributed to Washington that cannot be verified:

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the
people’s liberty teeth (and) keystone… the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable… more than
99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very
atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes,
we need them every hour.” (Address to 1st session of Congress)

Those above are accurate and verifiable.
DKK

LifeTrek on February 23, 2008 at 04:07 pm

McCracken is just irritated at me, as uual, because I oppose his malicious disregard for the U.S. Constitution. We are thereby, as regards the Constitution, enemies!

Get over yourself, Ivanhoe.

Handguns are not weapons of war.  So maybe the original intent of the constitution is not to protect those.

So, I guess every time SCOTUS sits to judge a law, they should apply international treaties/laws before they consider the Constitution?

Well there is one of those silly strawmen arguments you are so well-known for, Neiman. Only you seem to be the one arguing this.

Not true. The Second Amendment, according to Miller v. U.S., protects weapons that are customarily used by militias. Pistols do fall under that definition. Sawed-off shotguns, according to Miller, do not.

According to your doctrine, as I understand it, whenever we enter into an international treaty it amends the Constitution, I simply disagree.

Again, no one said this.

It never meant that SCOTUS should appeal to international treaties/law as a means of interpreting what our Constitution should mean.

It’s called the Supremacy Clause and, once again Neiman, you are arguing with no one but yourself.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:12 pm

Sorry, got my quotes and text mixed up there!

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:13 pm

Life Trek: Regarding the Constitution, I love direct quotations from our Founding Fathers, people that I supect understood it better than others commenting here. Thank you!

I believe the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says and “the people” mean us private citizens, and that means we have an absolute right to keep and bear armns without government interference.

My opposition to McCracken and O’Conner is about using international law or treaties to interpret our Constitution.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:14 pm

Of course that is exactly what you meant to do and are still doing, so your are lying, correct?

*Sigh* no, Neiman. I regretted writing it as so as I hit submit.

You know what? Stop trying to play these mindreading games.

You are horrible at them.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:14 pm

My opposition to McCracken and O’Conner is about using international law or treaties to interpret our Constitution.

Well your opposition is completely misplaced, because it happens all the time.

Did you, or did you not read the Paquete Habana quote?

What, does that not count or something, heh, because you say so?

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:17 pm
Avatar for Jack

...John McCain should have no trouble winning against someone as radically leftwing as Obama in November.

Hee hee hee…

I’m throwing a big BBQ and kegger on 1/20/09 to celebrate the inaugeration of President Obama. You’re invited.

Jack on February 23, 2008 at 04:23 pm

Justice McCracken:
On an earlier thread some time ago you argued that O’Connor was right that SCOTUS should apply international law and treaties in interpreting our Constitution, which was her belief, and that has been the centerpiece of our disagreement. I am not arguing against myself, but against what I believe is your wholly perverse view of the Constitution. I must, in all honesty, admit there is always the possibilty of my having misunderstood your intent, that is, the true breadth of your support for the O’Connor doctrine, so I am only arguing against what I perceived as your views on the matter.

I refuse the right of anyone to use anything but the Constitution to interpret the Constitution and I absolutely reject stare decisis as a legal doctrine, as it is a means of much mischief to our Constitution and liberty, as by settled law, no matter how it violates our Constitution, I believe it cannot be used to amend it and when it does I am honor bound to oppose it!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:24 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Then, if the words in the Constitution do not mean exactly what they say, it cannot ever be trusted in any shape, manner or form to mean anything at all, we can never trust in it to protect our liberty as citizens; it is a liberal, Democrat, ever changing document subject to the whims of the party in power. Okay, but that is not how I read the Constitution.

Original intent is not the same as strict constructionist.  Original intent means you must bring history into play.  I think you are a strict constructionist. 

Article Six DOES NOT in any way, shape, manner or form allow the SCOTUS to use international laws and treaties as a means of interpreting our Constitution, which is what O’Connor and it appears you believe.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

As a strict constructionist, you must agree that treaties are equal to the Constitution?  Unless you are a judicial activist.

O’Conner made it clear in her writing that international law should be followe when there was no other controlling authority.  No laws, no executive decisions, no treaties, no judicial decisions, absolutely nothing.  This is absolutely consistent with the common law philosphy of our judicial system.

Life Trek,

The Washington quote you use has been discredited.  Here is a real one.

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 04:26 pm

On an earlier thread some time ago you argued that O’Connor was right that SCOTUS should apply international law and treaties in interpreting our Constitution, which was her belief, and that has been the centerpiece of our disagreement.

You’re hallucinating. I did no such thing.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:30 pm

Did you, or did you not read the Paquete Habana quote?

What, does that not count or something, heh, because you say so?

It is one of many deliberate perversions of the Constitution by an activist court. Just because they say it, if it violates the Constitution, it is still unconstitutional and must be opposed and overthrown. No law outside of our own Constitution may be lawfully used to interpret the Constitution, or we no longer have a Constitution at all, it has become a swiss cheese document,subservient to the laws of the international community, which is wholly at enmity with the United States and it is meaningless. IT also means we no longer, as a nation, a free!

You will dismiss it, but you are in the spirit of the coming Anti-Christ, as he will bring the whole world under submission to one global set of laws, and in your agreement with international treaties and laws being supreme over our Constitution, you agree with that evil being.

So, I was right, you do submit to the O’Connor Doctrine and are an enemy of our Constitution!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:32 pm

You’re hallucinating. I did no such thing.

You oppose yourself, because in the quote below you did agree with that doctrine without using her name.

Well your opposition is completely misplaced, because it happens all the time.

Did you, or did you not read the Paquete Habana quote?

What, does that not count or something, heh, because you say so?

You agree with this decision and thus O’Connor!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:36 pm

As a strict constructionist, you must agree that treaties are equal to the Constitution?  Unless you are a judicial activist.

No, because in my opinion the Supremacy Clause says no such thing! It just makes the Constitution and any international treaties entered into by the federal government supreme over individual state laws. It never even implies that International Treaties and Laws can be used to interpret our National (Federal) Constitution.

But, I guess you are right, I am more a strict constructionist!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 04:40 pm

You oppose yourself, because in the quote below you did agree with that doctrine without using her name.

Neiman, we would get along so much better if you stopped accusing me of things I haven’t even said.

You have a long, annoying history of doing that to me, starting with that crap about me wanting to suck up to Michelle Malkin, along with virtually every ‘argument’ you have made in this thread.

I encourage you to stop mind reading, and stick to what I have actually written.

You agree with this decision and thus O’Connor!

Neiman, it is settled law and not a question of agreeing with it or not. You might not like it, but for fuck’s sake that doesn’t mean it isn’t law.

What, the Paquete Habana just means nothing because you say so?

You are confusing what the law is with your uninformed interpretations of what you think it should be.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 04:43 pm

What, the Paquete Habana just means nothing because you say so?

IT MEANS NOTHING IF IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

If it says it is okay to interpret our Constitution based on International laws or treaties, it is unconstitutional and need not be obeyed! Where in our Constitution does it say that SCOTUS should or can use International Law and Treaties to interpret our Constitution or in any way amend it? Give me the exact qoutation from our Constitution, please!

That would mean that if International Law or Treaties do not conform to our Constitution, the very existence of such international laws or treaties amend our Constitution outside the mandated Amendment process! Which means all our laws are subject to International approval! I cannot believe you can think this garbage is in any way Consitutional!

Supremacy means the Constitiuon and Treaties must be obeyed by the states, it in no shape, manner or form implies that such international law or treaties are supreme over our Constitution.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 05:00 pm

Neiman, we would get along so much better if you stopped accusing me of things I haven’t even said.

I don’t want to get along with you at all, as I believe you are an enemy of our Constitution and our Liberty!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 05:01 pm

Neiman, we would get along so much better if you stopped accusing me of things I haven’t even said.

Words have meaning! I need not read your mind, I need only read your words and they tell me what you think! Although, You don’t seem to think the words in the Constitution mean what they say, so maybe your words don’t either?


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 05:08 pm

Lestat, isn’t that what I said by pointing out that there were unverified quotes?  My point was that while you are so interested in what the founders meant, there are quotes that were not accurate, but there are some that are and contradict your stated understanding.

As a matter of fact, you contradict yourself in the space of two paragraphs:

You pretend that the founding fathers were some monolithic force and that they had a single original intent.  It’s not true.  The Founding Fathers had great disagreement about how things should work.  Many opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought that we enshrined only some rights that later generations would claim that these were the only protected rights.  And that was not their intent.

It is clear that the 2nd amendment was created to protect weapons of war, to allow us to protect ourselves against our own government or foreign invading forces.  The original intent was not for us to protect ourselves against crime.  Handguns are not weapons of war.  So maybe the original intent of the constitution is not to protect those.

Seems you are guilty of the same thing you accused Nieman of.  Obviously it isn’t as clear and the founding fathers didn’t have the monolithic intent, as you correctly pointed out in your first paragraph, and proceeded to ignore in your second.  How ironic and kinda funny to read.
DKK

LifeTrek on February 23, 2008 at 05:08 pm

Neiman, maybe I can explain this in a way you understand it.

There are many sources of law: English common law, the Constitution, legislation, regulations.

They all need to be interpreted at some point. Judges and justices use mandatory authority, such as court precedents, or the Constitution, as interpretive tools.

When those mandatory authorities are silent as to how the case at hand it to be interpreted, federal courts are free to use persuasive authorities, such as the Federalist papers, state law, or *gasp* international law or even something like Australian common law to interpret the case at hand.

There is nothing controversial whatsoever in the legal community about doing this, it has been done this this way long before our Republic was founded.

You could have saved me the time to write this if you had bothered to read the Paquete Habana blurb. 

I don’t know where you are getting all this ‘international law trumps the Constitution’ crap, but it isn’t even an argument I have made.

Again Neiman, you are arguing with no one but yourself.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 05:09 pm

You don’t seem to think the words in the Constitution mean what they say, so maybe your words don’t either?

For the umpteenth time, I have never made the argument that the Constitution does not mean what it says.

Please stop accusing me of arguments I have not even made.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 05:13 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Lestat, isn’t that what I said by pointing out that there were unverified quotes?

Your last statement was that the above were accurate and verifiable.

The quote I gave is accurate and verifiable because it was made to Congress and is in the Congressional Record.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 05:24 pm

McCracken: You are a Crown Prince of Spin!

International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.

I thought you were a lawyer, oh well, Billy Jeff was a lawyer too and couldn’t define what “is” - “is!” He must be your mentor. 

(1) This in no way refers to our Constitution being interpreted by international law! Not one word!
(2) It states that if the rights of someone in this country were, according to International Law, being violated; that is denied, the courts could examine that law to determine if such rights were apparent, governing and thus enforceable.
(3) That law could still be appealed to SCOTUS to determine if it violated our Constitituion, which is the Supreme Law of this land, not International law as you seem to prefer and twist things out of all context to prove.

Just use you head for a minute, think about what it means, as you interpret it. Senor Jose Castro says that according to International Law he cannot be deported from any country, if he got inside national waters before he was caught. Thus, international law could force us to take any illegal alien into our country that could sneak into our national waters and we had to let him stay here and take care of him. Hell, then our national sovereignty an donly our national sovereignty would be subjected to innational law. The U.N. hates America, they get a certain number of countries to say Cubans in their national waters have to be allowed in, as if any real numbers ever could get there. But, it wouldn’t make any difference, they can force us to take every Cuban, criminal or not insane or not as long as he got inside our national waters. International Law then controls our national sovereignty! Bullcrap!

Most European countries outlawed the Death Penalty, thus it is established in International Law and any death row inmate here can appeal to International Law and avoid the death penalty.

You are taking the Supremacy Article and this decison out of all context to force them to demand our Constitution be subjected to International Law, which neither of them say or imply!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 05:39 pm

This in no way refers to our Constitution being interpreted by international law! Not one word!

Gee, no kidding Neiman. I am glad you finally got that through your thick head.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 05:48 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Nieman, when you quote the legal decision, why do you delete the proceeding sentence where it explains when international law is used. 

For this purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of eivilized nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators who by years of labor, research, and experience have made themselves peculiarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 05:58 pm

Once again you oppose yourself, you have been arguing all day that the Supremacy Clause and International Law can be used to Interpret our Constitution. I said that was untrue, I then demomstrated in both instances that this was untrue. Now, you repudiate your International Law has Supremacy over our Constitution doctrine - that is incredible hubris on your part.

We will continue to passionately disagree on this matter, both of us being in everlasting opposition to one another; as I hold that my liberty, my security and my inalienable rights are enshrined in the Constitution and only the Constitution. Thus, I can stand on that document and fight for my rights; that is, unless O’Connor types win the debate and International Law is given supremacy over our Constitution and in the latter case, we are no longer a free and a sovereign nation, we are subservient to International Law and anti-American forces.

I fought and all my family fought in uniform back to the American Revolution for the United States, not for the supremacy of International Law over our Constitution. We hold that a basic right is for each of us to keep and bear arms for our own security and if necesary to take up arms against the tyranny of the government. Which, by the way, since a couple of years after leaving the Marine Corps, I have never owned a fire arm, but when ya’all come after me or mine, I’ll damn sure get some and defend our rights.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 06:06 pm

Lestat, yes, but you forgot the first part:

While it is often hard to verify quotes, such as this one attributed to Washington that cannot be verified:

then I continued:

Those above are accurate and verifiable.

Wow, I am blown away.  This is written (poorly on my part perhaps) like your reading of the second amendment, no wonder you didn’t understand it.  Note you understood the operative portion though, why not in the second amendment.

Now, on to your understanding that the Founding Fathers weren’t monolithic, well, except for on that second amendment where they were.
DKK

LifeTrek on February 23, 2008 at 06:09 pm

Lestat: You are trying to accuse me of dishonesty, it would have been better to just to call me dishonest. I used only those words therein that were necessary to prove that no where did it imply SCOTUS could or should use international law to interpret our Constitution. You argue your way, I’ll argue mine!

Justice McCracken: I meant to add, my family even fought for your right to try and undermine our Constitution by insisting it is subservient to International Law, as we believe in Free Political Speech as a right of every citizen, even for anti-America liberals.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 06:11 pm

Now, you repudiate your International Law has Supremacy over our Constitution doctrine

It is an argument I never made, Neiman.

anti-America liberals

Are you calling me an anti-American liberal, Neiman?

I hope you didn’t just call me an anti-American liberal.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 06:33 pm

I want to recap just how stupid your arguments are, Neiman.

This all started with my post in which I stated, quoting Eugene Volokh, that it is unremarkable that arbitration panels interpret sharia law and other foreign laws in making their decisions.

This, somehow, turned into I ‘favor international law over the Constitution’ or some idiotic version thereof, of an argument I never made.

I pointed out that the Supreme Court refers to international law all the time, a la the Paquete Habana.

It isn’t even my argument, it is the Supreme Court’s.

I really resent having to defend myself against arguments I never made, because I am arguing with someone to obtuse to even understand the arguments, and who goes off and invents his own arguments and charges them to me.

Neiman, you have demonstrated pretty clearly that you are so confused at this point, that you don’t even know who is arguing what.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 06:42 pm
Avatar for Lestat

You are trying to accuse me of dishonesty, it would have been better to just to call me dishonest.

I don’t think it is dishonest, just ignorance.  The decision cited did in no way say tht international law trumps the Constitution.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 06:42 pm

Lestate is right, but that won’t stop Neiman from arguing otherwise.

Why, I am not sure.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 06:45 pm

Not that it matters much, but I included anti-American liberals generally, I just think of you as an enemy of the Constitution.

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
— Thomas Jefferson

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln

Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.”
Abraham Lincoln

“The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” -Samuel Adams”

“If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” George Washington

All those that might suggest that any law or any agency has supremacy over the U.S. Constitution, are, I believe, enemies of the Constitution and of our Liberty and they must be opposed, lest we surrender our basic rights as human beings to them without a most violent fight.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 06:51 pm

Neiman, for the last fucking time, get it through your thick, empty skull.

I never argued that international law should take precedence over the Constitution.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 07:05 pm

Neiman, you have demonstrated pretty clearly that you are so confused at this point, that you don’t even know who is arguing what.

Wrong again! You are unable to defend your position, so you choose like any person of limited intellect to engage in juvenile name calling and personal attacks, these are the refuges of unregenerate scoundrels.

The decision cited did in no way say that international law trumps the Constitution.

That is what I have been saying all damn day and you and McCracken have insisted it supported International Law as being supreme over the Constitution and in fact you used those very words: “According to the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land.  Maybe Justice McCraken knows more than you.” You were wrong! McCracken was wrong and now you both engage in non-denial denials for a little CYA!

But, sadly neither of you are capable of admitting you had no evidence to support the idea that International Law is supreme over the Constitution and that the SCOTUS is obliged or even allowed to use it to interpret our Constitution. Either one or both at any time early on could have simply said, “I do no believe that International Law or treaties are supreme over our Constitution nor does the Constitution even hint that SCOTUS should use them to interpret the Constitution.” That would have ended the debate! But, you both argued the opposite all day and just now are trying to squirm out of an indefensible position.

I was always secure in my position, because I can read the English langauge and therefore I clearly understand what you are saying, I know that the Constitution is the only Supreme Law of this Nation and I know that our Founding Father’s agreed!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 07:05 pm

Neiman, for the last fucking time, get it through your thick, empty skull.

Now you descend to meaningless vulgar expressions, betraying your lack of command of the facts and the English language.

The very decision you quoted was used as your basis to prove me wrong and assert supremacy of International Law over the Constitution. If you are now admitting you made an error - fine. Then we agree that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the and no decision of any court or appeal to any other law has supremacy!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 07:10 pm

McCracken, all you ever had to do, if you thought I misinterpreted your position was say that you felt I misunderstood and then include your actual position on the matter is thus and thus - end of debate! Except I would have apologized for my misreading your true meaning!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 07:12 pm

That is what I have been saying all damn day and you and McCracken have insisted it supported International Law as being supreme over the Constitution and in fact you used those very words: “According to the Constitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land.  Maybe Justice McCraken knows more than you.” You were wrong!

Neiman, here is what the Supremacy Clause states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

But, sadly neither of you are capable of admitting you had no evidence to support the idea that International Law is supreme over the Constitution and that the SCOTUS is obliged or even allowed to use it to interpret our Constitution.

Well, considering neither Lestat nor I even made this argument, of course we have no evidence to support it.

I was always secure in my position, because I can read the English langauge and therefore I clearly understand what you are saying

No, you really really don’t. 

I know that the Constitution is the only Supreme Law of this Nation and I know that our Founding Father’s agreed!

Oh, I guess the Supremacy Clause just . . . what, doesn’t exist in Neiman world?

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 07:14 pm
Avatar for Lestat

The very decision you quoted was used as your basis to prove me wrong and assert supremacy of International Law over the Constitution

No it didn’t.  In fact even in the small snippet that was quoted here it didn’t.  It was a admiralty case from 1900.  It was a novel issue.  All the court said was that in the absence of all other authority they can use international law.

Hell, it wasn’t even appealed on constitutional issues.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 07:20 pm

Neiman,

Much more of this utter foolishness on your part, and you’ll have more than a few of us wondering if you aren’t really a grumpy old Ron Paul supporter who buys into the notion that the 16th Amendment and the federal income tax are also unconstitutional, and that a secret cabal of Jewish CFR members controls the whole world.

Ken hasn’t been endorsing either the use of foreign law or the supremacy of international treaties over the US Constitution, merely explaining the precedents.  Your increasingly shrill and strident arguments are bordering on the ridiculous.  The fact that this is a tough time of year for you (a fact with which we all empathize...especially those of us who also served and lost friends and loved ones) is no reason take umbrage at the rest of us.  Including Ken.

A time-out seems to be in order.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 23, 2008 at 07:20 pm

Thanks Bat for the sanity.

I am bowing out of this argument.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 07:26 pm

A double minded man (you) is unstable in all his ways, and can never find the truth about anything.

I know that the Constitution is the only Supreme Law of this Nation and I know that our Founding Father’s agreed!

Oh, I guess the Supremacy Clause just . . . what, doesn’t exist in Neiman world?

Once again, you are promoting a doctrine of Supremacy of International Law over the Constitution and will later deny you said it.

(1) This Constitution, and (2) the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; AND (3) all Treaties made, or which shall be made, (4) under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This was directed at the “judges in every state!” It asserted that the Constitution first and all federal laws second and then and only then any treaties entered into by the federal government shall be supreme over the laws of the states and thus state judges cannot defy the Constitution or defy the Constitution, federal laws or any lawful treaties.

It DOES NOT any in way, shape, manner or form assert supremacy of International Treaties or Laws over the Constitution, nor does it in any manner suggest SCOTUS may use such treaties/laws to interpret the Constitution.

Sadly, you seem unable to read and diagram sentences and paragraphs to determine what is actually being said, if you could you could not once again assert International Laws or Treaties as being supreme over the Constitution - you could not honestly do that!

The decision you keep quoting does not support your International Laws doctrine!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 07:31 pm

On the Supreme Court and international law:

The debate on the [Supreme] Court is no longer over whether to cite foreign sources of law, but over when and how to cite them.


Stephen C. Calabres, Northwestern University, April 2005

http://papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstratct_id=700176

Now, before both sides in this argument level your blunderbusses at me, you need to read Calabres’ report. I am disturbed that this trend to ‘lean’ on foreign law is emerging, but it is. Thats a fact.

If you like the idea of the Supreme Court citing foreign law, then Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama will be your choice this November because they will name more justices who share that view.

If you don’t like the idea, then you know what to do.


"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

pparets on February 23, 2008 at 07:44 pm

Bat One:
I have proven by McCracken’s own words that he did promote International Law as having Supremacy over the Constitution as I did with Lestat, using their own words.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

So here he promotes with bold type face, in a dishonest manner, the very thing you said he never promoted, but I am wrong? In what world? The bold type face he applied says “all treaties made . . . shall be the supreme law of the land.” He deliberately resserted the claim you now deny he made, by use of his own bold type face, knbowingly misquoting the decision thereby, but even with that prrof of his dishonesty staring you in the face, you deny he was promoting that very doctrine?

But, apparently, even when I provide their own words against them and then provide rational arguments to refute their errant beliefs that is strident?Strident: 1. loud: harsh, loud, grating, or shrill
strident tones of voice 2. strongly expressed: loudly, strongly, or urgently expressed.

If that is true then I have no more desire to comment here at SA as according to the “Brotherhood of Front Page Posters,” it is strident and wrong to use the words of others to prove what they have said and then to argue rationally against their beliefs.

No reproof for McCracken’s gutter language and personal attacks by you, so now I know where you stand and it is to defend your fellow Front Page Posters against clearly established evidence against them, to circle the wagons and demand that other admit to SA lies.

This has nothing to do with my son, it is about your willingness to lie for this proven liar. I debated in a clear and honest fashion using only the facts and you have attacked me for defending my beliefs. Incredible!

Well, to hell with all three of you! You didn’t win the debate, you just shut down all debate with your lies! You cannot prove that I said one false thing about McCracken, nor that I used abusive language; but, you object to fact he lost the debate and you ride into rescue him from his own lying folly! To do what you have just done makes you no better than McCracken, you are a conscious accomplice to his lies.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 07:59 pm

Unbelievable.

Ken McCracken on February 23, 2008 at 08:10 pm

pparets: That is the whole point, two people were asserting that International Law was supreme over the Constitution, I don’t deny that many have this view, as did O’Connor; but it is wrong, the Supremacy Clause and the case they cited did not make the case at all that International Law is supreme over our Constitution or that the Justices may appeal to International Law. They may be doing that, they may think it is okay, but where is the Constitutional Warrant for doing so? I cannot find it!

If the case you cited offered Constitutional Support, I hate the idea, but okay if the Constitution say it is okay. But, I think this is a clear cut case, these two people asserted International Law Supremacy, I demonstrated why it is not supported by the Constitution, but Bat One is the final judge of all men and he says I am strident and wrong to passionately argue my case. He apparently, despises free speech and likes to demean those that do and make denigrating personal remarks about me and my late son in support of his intimate pals.


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 08:13 pm

Unbelievable.

Well back to your msterful command of the English language and more promotion of your lies, because you are a thoroughly dishonest person!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 08:15 pm

McCracken: Your father is the father of lies in this affair, for the truth is not in him or his son (you)!

But, you have a new lover in Bat One, so that should get you through the night!


No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Neiman on February 23, 2008 at 08:16 pm

Neiman:

Thanks for your response.  Stephen C. Calebrisi, Northwestern University Law School, in 2005 wrote The Supreme Court and Foreign Sources of Law: Two Hundred Years of Practice and the Juvenile Death Penalty decision, in which - as near as I can tell - he argues that the court is tending more and more to rely of foreign law and that the liberal and conservative wings of the court are split over this practice.

The link I supplied does not seem to work. But the article can be googled, I hope.


"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

pparets on February 23, 2008 at 08:27 pm

Neiman,

I am done with you as well!  You have neither cause to call me a liar, nor the sagacity to substitute your presumption for my motives.  And whatever it is you think you’ve “won"… you’re welcome to it.

In any event, your juvenile prattle about “Front Page Posters” reminds me of nothing so much as the indignation of a thirteen year old whose mother refuses to allow her to wear lipstick.

I sincerely hope that you make a full recovery from whatever is ailing you.  But in the meantime, like I said above, I’m done with you too!


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 23, 2008 at 08:33 pm

Amazing!!

Truly amazing!  I write a post on Barack Obama’s attempt to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment, quoting David Bernstein who, ironically, posted his article at Professor Gene Volokh’s blog, and now 57 comments into the “discussion” there have been all manner of baseless, strident accusations, and not one mention of Obama and his contempt for the 2nd Amendment.

Amazing!!


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 23, 2008 at 08:48 pm
Proof
Proof
12882 comments
Send a private message

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have a president who has violated my free speech rights by making it illegal for me to say certain things on the airwaves for 60 days before an election, than one who wants violate my self-defense rights by making all three of my guns illegal. Wait, only two - one of them’s a revolver. I’m sure he’ll get to that next…

-Rachel Lucas


Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on February 23, 2008 at 08:56 pm
Avatar for andydakota

battyone, while I am a recent visitor to this blog, it is clear from your postings that you sure can give but you can’t take it.  It appears that you are a regular attacker here and when it happens to you you whine like a little baby because someone called you a liar.  People throw the “liar” word around here quite a bit.

Oh, the reason there have been no comments on Obama, is because no one believes what you posted. Get it now?

andydakota on February 23, 2008 at 09:00 pm
Proof
Proof
12882 comments
Send a private message

the reason there have been no comments on Obama, is because no one believes what you posted

Or maybe no one is that surprised when a leftist invokes the power of the state to disarm otherwise law abiding citizens?



Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Proof on February 23, 2008 at 09:09 pm
Avatar for Lestat

I have proven by McCracken’s own words that he did promote International Law as having Supremacy over the Constitution as I did with Lestat, using their own words.

All you did was quote the Constitution and disagree with it.  You claim that because the Constitution was mentioned first that it is above the others.  That clearly is in conflict with the plain meaning of the text which says they are all the Supreme Law of the Land.  A plain meaning interpretation would be that they are equivalent. 

There is a whole section of law called Conflict of Laws that would deal with this type of issue.  I have not studied this but I am confident that if a treaty can into conflict with the Constitution, the Supreme Court would side with the Constitution, at least for political reasons if no other.  They may have already done so, but I have not been able to find a citation.

In reality this is the reason treaties are dangerous.  It is why we need to be careful when signing them.  The WTO agreement has already given away some of our sovreignty where state laws have been overuled by that Treaty.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 09:12 pm

andy,

I don’t have much confidence that you’ll be able to comprehend what I’m saying, but on the off chance that you might just surprise me…

My concern about being called names is based on the reason for such behavior and the person engaged in it.  In your case, for example, I couldn’t give a shit less what you think.  Honestly!  After all, there’s no reason I can see to respect your opinion.

Neiman’s opinion, on the other hand, matters, and I find his wholly unwarranted name-calling offensive, for reasons which are really no concern of yours.

As for Obama and his ill-conceived actions to “control” guns while an Illinois state senator, if you can establish that what I posted was factually incorrect, I’ll be only to happy to acknowledge my mistake and apologize.

If not, just drink your milk and toodle off to bed like a good little boy, and leave the discourse to those of us adults who have the necessary mental horsepower.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on February 23, 2008 at 09:13 pm
Avatar for Lestat

Truly amazing!  I write a post on Barack Obama’s attempt to completely circumvent the 2nd Amendment, quoting David Bernstein who, ironically, posted his article at Professor Gene Volokh’s blog, and now 57 comments into the “discussion” there have been all manner of baseless, strident accusations, and not one mention of Obama and his contempt for the 2nd Amendment.

The nature of blogs.  People discuss what they want to, not what you want them to.

Lestat on February 23, 2008 at 09:15 pm
Avatar for andydakota

Battyone, perhaps I should have been more specific about what no one believed as in this comment: 

No matter what the media tells us, John McCain should have no trouble winning against someone as radically leftwing as Obama in November.

There simply is no evidence that you can point to that says that McCain will have not trouble in November.  McCain can’t even get his own party in line as is evidenced by many on this site. 

So feel free to apologize anytime. Oh and perhaps you should add a few new horses to your horsepower, as what you’re running with is coming up short.

andydakota on February 23, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.