Feinstein slaps down president of debate club

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

But they didnt say "slaves" guys.

I know, right? "Free persons" vs. "indians not taxed. . . and all other persons." I'm sure those who were in bondage found it very comforting to be an "other person" under the Constitution.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

But they didnt say "slaves" guys.

Exactly, and it was deliberate.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by g8rjd

I know, right? "Free persons" vs. "indians not taxed. . . and all other persons." I'm sure those who were in bondage found it very comforting to be an "other person" under the Constitution.

They were even respectful of indentured servants' feelings too: "persons bound to servitude for a period of years." That's how you knew these guys were English, they went out of their way to talk around a sensitive subject.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by gatorjd95

Constitutional issues are inherently nuanced. However, it is the approach from the left and the right that is telling. In this instance, Feinstein (Dems) views the 2nd Amendment through the prism of what guns gov't allows people to have. Cruz (Reps) views the 2nd Amendment as "a right of the people" that may or may not have limitations, similar to 1st and 4th Amendments.

Side note - these Dem senators (and posters here) need to research that "yelling fire in theater" "ruling" that is used as a convenient prop/dodge. http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/...ter-19421.html

Interesting perspective, but it wasn't what I took from it. I really saw the debate as one that has been around since the Federalist Papers. The underlying premise of Cruz's argument was that Congress has a concomant responsibility to construe the Constitution, even if that contruction is not what the Supreme Court has found, and not pass a law that it deems in its (and, in this case his) judgment to be unconstitutional.

The underlying premise of Feinstein's argument is that it is the Supreme Court, not Congress, that construes the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has indicated that the area that Congress seeks to regulate is not restricted by the Constitution, namely the Second Amendment.

Those underlying premises are quite legitimate questions. Does each branch of government have an obligation to contrue the Constitution and act in accordance with it? Marbury v. Madison says it is the judiciary's responsibility to say what the law is, but the Supreme Court is right because they are last, not last because they are right. And the judicial process is at the end of the legal process, while Congress operates at the beginning, so the last court in the last part of the process will always have the last word. But is judicial review the ONLY manner in which constitutional construction and conflict should be resolved? Is that a proper thing for Congress to do to? What about the President? Should he veto legislation that he may agree with but believes to be unconstitutional? Or should that only be left to the courts?

As to your second point, fire in a crowded theater is a trite example. However, the other one presents the legitimate point in response. You don't have a right to have a book of child pornography of real children, even under the First Amendment. The example was to show that all rights have their limitations and, so long as Congress acts within those limitations, Congress's regulation is constitutional.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

Exactly, and it was deliberate.

And so was the protection of existing property (slaves), including counting said property for representational purposes. They totally defered the question of slavery, and more or less sanctioned it to get the document signed. The Constitution was an act of compromise, not a charter delivered perfectly from the heavens.

[Minister_of_Information]

The point you guys are missing is that the word "slave" was left out of the Constitution because the framers anticipated that slavery would be defunct in the future, and they were crafting what was hoped to be an eternal document that could accommodate and even foster such a change. No such precautions were taken with the word "arms" or the rest of the bill of rights. That enumeration of rights was understood to be eternal.

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

They were even respectful of indentured servants' feelings too: "persons bound to servitude for a period of years." That's how you knew these guys were English, they went out of their way to talk around a sensitive subject.

Masters of the euphemism.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The point you guys are missing is that the word "slave" was left out of the Constitution because the framers anticipated that slavery would be defunct in the future, and they were crafting what was hoped to be an eternal document. So no such precautions were taken with the word "arms" or the rest of the bill of rights. That enumeration of rights was also understood to be eternal.

I think you are commiting a historian's fallacy here.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

They were even respectful of indentured servants' feelings too: "persons bound to servitude for a period of years." That's how you knew these guys were English, they went out of their way to talk around a sensitive subject.

Yes, because context of the time period and what was acceptable and legal at that time has absolutely no bearing at all.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think you are commiting a historian's fallacy here.

I think you are uninformed.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

The point you guys are missing is that the word "slave" was left out of the Constitution because the framers anticipated that slavery would be defunct in the future, and they were crafting what was hoped to be an eternal document that could accommodate and even foster such a change. No such precautions were taken with the word "arms" or the rest of the bill of rights. That enumeration of rights was understood to be eternal.

You are correct, and it was written in such a way to prohibit importation of slaves to the United States in twenty years' time, which it did.

[MichiGator2002]

Did anyone else die a little inside the first time they realized someone thought the big racial injustice of the Constitution was that they should have counted the entire slave population instead of just 3/5ths of it?

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

I think you are uninformed.

I think you are uninformed if you think there was any kind of prevailing sentiment over the durability of slavery or the eternal nature of the charter at the time the Constitution was written. To ascribe such a degree of intentionality to a charter drawn up by many authors with many minds driven by compromise to even agree to it is a fallacy of our presentism, IMO.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think you are uninformed if you think there was any kind of prevailing sentiment over the durability of slavery or the eternal nature of the charter at the time the Constitution was written. To ascribe such a degree of intentionality to a charter drawn up by many authors with many minds driven by compromise to even agree to it is a fallacy of our presentism, IMO.

WOW really? So the north and the south had no such negotiations when framing the constitution?

[MichiGator2002]

Slave owning states agreeing to ratify a constitution that didn't let them count all their slaves for apportionment and explicitly granted to the new central government authority to ban slavery after a date certain were major, writing-on-the-wall concessions.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

WOW really? So the north and the south had no such negotiations when framing the constitution?

NOt sure how you derived that from what I wrote.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

I think you are uninformed if you think there was any kind of prevailing sentiment over the durability of slavery or the eternal nature of the charter at the time the Constitution was written. To ascribe such a degree of intentionality to a charter drawn up by many authors with many minds driven by compromise to even agree to it is a fallacy of our presentism, IMO.

Your opinion is noted. I refer you to the ubiquity of historians that appear to indulge in the same fallacy.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

NOt sure how you derived that from what I wrote.

There was a prevailing sentiment in the north. If there was not a prevailing sentiment the negotiations would have never taken place.

[baygator1]

An institutionalized, establishment relic says Congress should dick around with the Constitution and bump it to the courts to assess the constitutional merits of their deeds. And people think she's some sort of hero? She, along with McCain, Graham, Schumer and Leahy are all poster children for term limits.

She really made herself look bad in that pathetic response. You haven't been here long enough to understand how things work around here, son.

That's exactly the tired, old attitude in Congress that people in this country are sick of.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by baygator1

An institutionalized, establishment relic says Congress should dick around with the Constitution and bump it to the courts to assess the constitutional merits of their deeds. And people think she's some sort of hero? She, along with McCain, Graham, Schumer and Leahy are all poster children for term limits.

She really made herself look bad in that pathetic response. You haven't been here long enough to understand how things work around here, son.

That's exactly the tired, old attitude in Congress that people in this country are sick of.

As Feinstein noted in her.last remarks, it is "obvious" that she thinks her proposal will pass constitutional muster, the condescending and grandstanding platitudes of the debate club president aside. Also obviously, it is accepted law even among right wingers like Scalia that the second amendment is not absolute, a detail which escaped the debate club president.