Compared to Biden, we’re all “leading scholars”
April 12th, 2012
I love Bite Me Biden, I’m going to miss him after January. Apparently, according to the Washington Examiner, yesterday Bite Me told an eager crowd of reporters that Al Franken is a “leading legal scholar”;
“He has been one of the leading legal scholars,” Biden said of Franken today, according to the pool report. He also said that Franken “is deadly serious” as a senator. He made the comments while recalling concerns that then-candidate Franken could not be taken seriously as a Senate candidate given his SNL work.
Of course, compared to Joe Bite Me, Coco the Chimp is a leading legal scholar.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Ah, yes – Joe “Mr. Plagiarism” Biden lecturing us on scholarship. How apropos.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Dang! If he’s a legal scholar, then I’m a highly respected neurosurgeon, perhaps best known for the teaching hospitals I built over the past 30 years across the galaxy. When I wasn’t building launch systems for NASA. And exploring the ocean depths using a solar powered dive capsule of my own design.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Cmon people…these are the same people who employ skanks like Ann Rosen.
April 12th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
Correction to last…Hilary Rosen. Surprising how bitter hateful liberal chicks seem to be named Hilary…or maybe not so much of a surprise.
April 12th, 2012 at 7:38 pm
No surprise at all, Sparky.
Yeah, Franken is a legal scholar, like Obama is a Constitutional scholar.
April 12th, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Seriously, is Biden mentally ill, or suffering from Alzheimer’s?
April 13th, 2012 at 12:18 am
I think it is the stuff that the President is slipping him. To keep him compliant with the President’s plans. Either that, or he is the most specialist crayon in the box.
April 13th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Well Hell! I’m not a garbageman, I’m a nuclear scientist!? If I could lower myself to become a democRAT!?
April 13th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.
2. The only source i can see on this is from that blog. Half of it is spent discussing something Franken did during the Kagan hearings. Hardly an impartial source.
April 14th, 2012 at 12:42 am
They need to release an “open mic biden” dvd. Comedy gold, or absolutely horrifying, or both. Depending on how you look at it.
April 14th, 2012 at 12:43 am
Boy insipid, you were grounded for a long time. You must have broken a serious rule. Mommy finally give your computer back? Are you allowed to go outside yet?
April 14th, 2012 at 7:24 am
Speaking of “constitutional scholars” . . . how’s that 2nd Amendment and definition of “militia” research going for ya, oh Insipid the Clueless?
April 14th, 2012 at 9:00 am
@9- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002553008
Would this link be better for you, you fucking partisan retard?
April 14th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
I’m not going to bother quoting anyone, you know who you are and what you said.
The democratic underground link is from a diarist. It’s as if the folks here let ME write a diary. The source in DU is Jonathan Turley who doesn’t give his source, but i assume it’s the same Washington Examiner story.
Even if we are to generously assume that Joe Biden said that, so what? Is it the standing position of TAH that the only way someone can be a legal scholar is to have a law degree? James Madison studied law as an interest in public policy but never obtained a law degree. I think it’s fair to call the father of the Constitution a legal scholar. Plus Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law review at Harvard graduated 2nd in his class taught Constitutional law and you don’t recognize HIM as a scholar either. So in your view NO liberal can be a Constitutional Scholar because you think liberalism is antithetical to Constitutionalism.
Al Franken is an intelligent man. He made it into Harvard based on excellent scholarship in High Schoo and not because he was a “legacy”. He graduated Cum Laude, he was the lead writer of a major television show for a lot of years and won something like 8 emmys in the process, he was nominated for an academy award for his screenplay of “When a Man Loves a Woman” and he’s written quite a number of best selling books. The man is completely capable of studying and comprehending law on his own.
Nobunny- I wish you all would make up your mind. If i post a lot on this site people declare that I’m some kind of interloper and that i should “run along”. When i don’t post I’m usually either cowardly or, in your case, not allowed. Of course it can’t be that i have a life and interest outside of TAH.
Hondo- How’s that definition of Militia going for you? Or are you still maintaining that the CLEARLY military militia referred to in the body of the Constitution is completely different then the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment.
As far as the great debate goes. I do apologize for not showing up when i said i would and “defending” my views. I know that this is a subject you’re very passionate about. But you also should recognize that I’m NOT that passionate about it. I think if you want to own a gun, then you should be able to own a gun. I also think you’re stupid for wanting a gun, but you’re stupid for wanting heroin and i don’t think that should be illegal either.
You also should recognize that 1. for me to post here i either have to trade insults back and forth or i just have to be a metaphorical punching bag. I’m capable of doing both but neither is a lot of fun. 2. I do have school, a full time job and a Social life. The great debate will probably happen sooner or later, but it will probably be between semesters. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
So, while i DO believe that the Congress has the right to make guns illegal or legislate it in any other way they like, i would not necessarily vote for it if i were a member of Congress. For whatever it’s worth, i also believe that Congress probably has the authority to mandate that we all have weapons. I wouldn’t vote for that law either.
What bothers me is the creeping 2nd amendment. If you all would just state “We believe every American has the right to keep and bear arms” and interpreted it as the right to have a handgun and to have hunting rifles, that would be OK. I’d STILL think you were wrong, but hey, you have a right to be wrong.
What bothers me is folks like Tim McViegh who insanely believed that the 2nd amendment gave him the right to wage war against his government.
What bothers me is ALEC and folks like the author of this blog who think that laws like “Stand Your Ground” have anything to do with the Constitution. Fine have your gun, but if you fire it and an unarmed man dies you should be forced to defend your actions.
What bothers me is when folks argue- and you know they’re out there- that the second amendment allows for a private citizen to have ALL weapons that the U.S. government can have. Thus the Koch brothers or Bill Gates can have their own private nuclear arsenal.
If your second amendment allows you to keep and fellate your own guns in the privacy of your own home fine. But when your second amendment prevents me from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed I have a problem with that. Especially if your interpretation allows the killer to walk away without having to explain himself in a court of law. When your second amendment prevents me from dropping off a a child at a government day-care center without some idiot blowing it up I have a problem with that.
When your second amendment infringes on a Pediatricians first amendment rights to warn a parent of the dangers of having a gun in the home, i have a problem with that.
But I guess you’re probably still railing from the SC totally eviscerating your “interpretation” of the 4th Amendment. Or are you going to argue that Zimmerman can’t be given a breathelizer after shooting a teenager but everyone else can be strip searched for violating a leash law? Or- in the SC case- committing no crime at all? Good luck with that.
April 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Insipid: do you even have a clue as to how the term “militia” is defined by Federal law today? Or how it was defined by Federal law at roughly the same time (1792) that the Bill of Rights was adopted?
Both of those definitions are critical to the bogus argument you’re trying to make here. You’re arguing – incorrectly – that the 2nd Amendment restricts gun possession to those who are members of the militia, which you’re defining as being the military reserves. But is even that fallacious argument you’re trying to make supportable based on 1790s and current Federal law? Under your argument, the former (1790s law) goes directly to the intent of the 2nd Amendment when written, and the latter (current Federal law) has a direct bearing on how it is to be legally interpreted today. Have you even checked to see that your argument has any legal basis whatsoever?
When you can answer both of those questions, then you’re qualified to discuss the subject of the 2nd Amendment and what “militia” means in that context. You’ll still be making a false argument if you choose to proceed – but you won’t be proceeding from a position of ignorance.
And until then, you’re not qualified to discuss the subject – and should keep quiet until you are. You might save yourself some embarrassment.
April 14th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
It would be nice if you understood my argument before you restated it. I made it VERY clear that i am not arguing that gun possession is restricted to members of the militia. If you want to have a gun, have fun. What i am arguing is that Congress CAN regulate guns if they want to. Not necessarily that they should. I think they can regulate drugs too. But i don’t necessarily believe they should.
Also, had the SC not inserted intself into the 2000 election and it was Al Gore rather than George Bush picking Sandra Day O’Conner’s replacement I would be arguing a 5-4 decision in MY favor. And you’d be the one arguing that the SC is full of shit. Which is, by the way, a perfectly valid argument to make. Four members of the SC saw it my way. So you can argue that they’re wrong, but you can’t logically argue that there is no legal basis. Four justices did find a legal basis. And- i might add- up until the SC recent Dictates my interpretation of the Constitution- that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias- was the law of the land. And yes i can site you many Federal Court cases that said precisely that.
The 1790s law clearly supports my view of it applying to militias in that it only applied to people of military age and that there was a conscientious objection exclusion.
As far as your closing shot as to what makes me “qualified” to debate you 1. You’re trying to have it both ways in saying that i was wrong to not defend myself and that I really can’t defend myself. That I have no right to give an opinion but that i’m also afraid or admitting to being incorrect if i don’t. 2. Why is it that I’m the only one obligated to answer nagging questions when it comes to Constitutional definitions of the militia?
How bout this when you’re able to answer why the Militia in the body of the constitution which calls for The president being able to call us up at a moments notice, which calls for Congress to Arm the militia and train its members is somehow magically different then the millitia in the 2nd. My view is consistent- they’re both military bodies. Your view is a mess.
April 14th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
By this logic, if one has read a couple of medical books one could be called a surgeon.
Being smart doesn’t make a body anything other than smart. It’s another of those concepts that the left always gets wrong. Yes, a smart person has the capacity to learn law, medicine, or whatever but having the capacity to learn is NOT the same as having knowledge of the law, medicine, or whatever.
I’ve read quite a few mystery novels, but that makes me neither a murderer nor a prosecuter. Writing some stuff for Hollywood simply does not equate to being a scholar of any variety.
This really ain’t complicated.
April 14th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Actually a pretty good argument OWB. However i would argue that Al Franken did study political science at Harvard and did graduate Cum Laude and that he does sit on the Judiciary Committee and that he has been a fairly successful Senator in terms of getting legislation through. Especially for a Freshman Senator.
However, you must admit that the basic problem folks here have is with WHO he’s calling a Legal scholar. If Joe Biden had called President Barack Obama a “leading legal scholar” UpNorth would certainly take issue with that. The problem here is the notion that anyone would call a liberal a legal scholar.
Either way, you all are being awfully snobbish. I’m willing to concede that both Sonny Bono and Ronald Reagan were intelligent men despite my not agreeing with their politics. You might disagree with Al Franken, but the man is intelligent.
April 14th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
@16 – “How bout this when you’re able to answer why the Militia in the body of the constitution which calls for The president being able to call us up at a moments notice, which calls for Congress to Arm the militia and train its members is somehow magically different then the millitia in the 2nd. My view is consistent- they’re both military bodies. Your view is a mess.”
Seriously? That’s easy. Read the Framers own opinions on that topic in Federalist #28, 29, and 46.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. You may argue that the SC is full crap, but 5 members got it right based on the words and intent of the framers and their contemporaries, 4 got wrong based on later interpretation rooted in partisan concerns. It’s simple as hell.
For more information Insipid, see also-
William Rawle’s “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829),
St. George Tucker’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803),
Justice Story’s 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”. Regarding the Second Amendment
Tench Coxe’s “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
I could fill pages here with information from the FOUNDERS in support of the individual right to keep and bear arms. It’s not even a challenge.
And I have a question for you Insipid, you wrote “But when your second amendment prevents me from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed I have a problem with that.”
Can you give me an example of how the Second Amendment has ever prevented you from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed? Can you give me an example of how it has done that to anyone? Come on, whatcha got?
April 14th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
Insipid . . . riiiight. You can cease work on the attempts to prove yourself a condescending, clueless ass. We get that about you alread.
And regarding your SCOTUS hypothetical above: in some alternate universe I’d be the one who founded MicroSoft instead of Bill Gates, and I’d be a multi-billionaire. But like your fantasy above, that’s not reality – it’s a fantasy.
Back to the topic at hand: here you’ve really exposed yourself as being clueless.
First: the Constitution says nothing about the President having the authority to “call up the militia at a moment’s notice”. In fact, the only mention of the President in connection with the militia in the Constitution is in Article II, Section 2. Here, the President is designated as commander in chief of “of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. That’s it.
Second: How – or how quickly – the militia is called into Federal service is nowhere referenced in the Constitution. Further, authority to prescribe how the militia is to be called up is granted specifically to the Congress – not the President – in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thus Congress – not the President – is the part of the Federal government who dictates how quickly the militia may be called to Federal service, and under what conditions.
Third: Congress only has the authority to act as a regulator in those areas where the Constitution grants it that authority – that is, in those areas specifically enumerated in Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution, or as specifically granted additional authorities by Constitutional Amendments. By the 10th Amendment, all other authorities are specifically withheld from Congress, being reserved to either individuals and/or the individual states.
Fourth: Even those authorities granted to Congress have limits imposed by other portions of the Constitution – most notably, by the Bill of Rights and other later Constitutional Amendments. And the 2nd Amendment specifically places limits on how much Congress can regulate individual ownership of firearms. In particular, outright prohibition is a NO GO on Constitutional grounds. And I’m cautiously optimistic that the SCOTUS will clarify and enforce the second major individual right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment – e.g., the right to carry (that pesky little “and bear” clause you and others sharing your point of view keep ignoring) – in the relatively near future. Reasonable legal regulation of firearms may be permissible – I haven’t heard anyone here argue for the unrestricted private possession of either machine guns or howitzers – but any such regulation still must be reasonable. And reasonable regulation may not be so onerous that is is equivalent to prohibition.
Oh, and you might want to go back and re-read your previous comments, both above and elsewhere. If memory serves, elsewhere you actually have argued that the 2nd Amendment does not convey an individual right of firearms ownership. The only way that can be true is to interpret the 2nd Amendment as restricting firearms possession to government-owned arms held temporarily by members of the militia. That’s only workable if you equate the terms militia and organized military reserves. And you’ve got a problem in that case, given both late 18th century and current legal definitions of the term militia.
In short: go do your homework, kid. And you probably shouldn’t come back until you do.
PS: Different subject: source for your claim regarding Obama’s Harvard Law School standing, please? Provide a credible citation, or I believe I’ll have to raise the BS flag regarding that claim.
April 14th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Oh, and Insipid: “leading scholars” in any field generally have numerous well-known, respected, published works relating to their field of expertise. These works are generally used by others and considered standards in that field of expertise.
I’d appreciate it if you could point me at, say, 2 or 3 well-known, respected, published academic works by Barak H. Obama regarding the law that are cited by others and considered standard works in the field. My memory isn’t that good today, and I have to admit I that I can’t seem to think of any off the top of my head. Maybe you can help.
And no – serving as student editor of a college publication, or publishing articles in same, generally doesn’t count. Not even if it was a Harvard Law School publication.
April 14th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Insipid: Alan Dershowitz is an example of a respected legal scholar who is also liberal. Al Franken is merely liberal; he’s no legal scholar.
April 14th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Regardless of Biden’s mental illness, he remains Obama’s ultimate insurance policy. Or America’s greatest vulnerability.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Generally speaking, similarly to what Hondo said above, a leading scholar in any field would be someone who members of that field would recognize as one. Political leaning really is irrelevant. It’s a technical expertise thing.
Kinda doesn’t matter to whom those of us outside the field might use for referance. I happen to know a couple of folks with very liberal political leanings who are recognized locally within the field of law as being very expert. Perhaps because of what they have done, written, and taught in the field of law?
But, fairly nice attempt at a straw man there, insipid. Of course, if you found yourself agreeing on our criteria for what makes a leading scholar in a field, it would throw out most of that “scientific evidence” submitted in the past 20 years or so from “peers” who had no expertise or reason to lecture any of the rest of us on global warming et al.
I kinda like using something beyond what would qualify one as an expert witness in a court of law plus recognition by one’s peers to define one as a “leading scholar.”
Whatever criteria is used, Franken ain’t one. He may indeed be smart, even well read, but he’s not a leading legal scholar by any sensible criteria a sane person, or a bar association, would use.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
There’s nothing in any of the Federalist papers that you have named that even remotely suggests that the militia is anything other than a military body.
Federalist #46: To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, OFFICERED by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by GOVERNMENTS possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops…..Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia OFFICERS are APPOINTED, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Federalist #28: THE power of REGULATING the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were CALLED INTO SERVICE for the public defense.
Federalist #28: Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to DO THEIR DUTY.
There is nothing i see in any of these documents that refer to the militia as anything other than what it was and is, a state-run military organization.
The President’s power to call foth the militia comes from article 2, section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States: And Courts have maintained since Lincoln that the President can activate the militia pretty much at will. Eisenhower did it, as did George H.W. Bush as did George W. Bush.
The Congress also has powers over the militia as shown in article 1:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Again, ALL these documents, including the Federalist papers and the body of the constitution itself CLEARLY refers to the militia as being a military body. Now you guys are trying to magically say it isn’t.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:13 pm
I will stipulate that i do not believe Franken to be a legal scholar. My argument wasn’t so much that i think Franken IS a legal scholar only that someone can refer to someone as that without the person necessarily having a law degree. IF that happened I’d like to know the context. Was he referring to Communications and internet rights- a field that Franken in more involved in then pretty much any other Senator- then maybe you could call him a “scholar” in that limited sense. Though i do admit that using that term is hyperbolic. I still do not trust the source of this story.
I also don’t understand the outrage. You all seem to be considerably more upset about this then Democrats are at Alen West referring to 80 members of Congress as communists.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Insipid @14:
I do not speak for TAH. I only speak for myself, so I can’t tell you that you aren’t allowed to comment. I find you annoying because you aren’t here to present an opinion. As Jonn says, this is an opinion website. I would say this is a DEFENSIBLE opinion website.
You find you are the punching bag because you are a troll.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Hondo- My point was that you’re arguing that my view has no validity whatsoever. That there is no precedent or arguments on my side. The fact that it was a 5 to 4 decision proves that at least 4 justices believe you’re wrong.
Secondly you’re ignoring both reality and Supreme Court decions (most notably actually the Roberts court) on the power of the executive. Almost every President Since Truman has called forth the Reserves as they see fit and the Supreme Court has never argued their right to do so. Certainly THIS court isnt’ about to say he doesn’t have the right. You can’t on the one hand argue that the SC is all knowing and all wise (at least the 5 that agree with you) but also argue that they got it wrong in allowing the President to call forth the militia as he or she sees fit.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:31 pm
My guess is that anyone who disagrees with you would be a troll, nobunny. And plus i don’t value the opinions of assholes like you.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Look up the definition of troll, troll.
“troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
See also insipid.
Ooooo, oh my, insipid called me an asshole. Hahahahahaha… How ever will I recover.
April 14th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums:
“1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.”
April 14th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
That’s right insipid, just ignore the obvious and keep prattling along.
I take comfort in the knowledge that you have been given the necessary information but are obviously to dense to draw the correct conclusions. Now before you can make some lame complaint like ‘Oh, since I don’t agree with you I’m stupid?’ allow me to explain.
No, you’re not stupid because you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid because you can’t draw logical conclusions, even when they’re presented to you in dotted lines on white paper and handed a crayon.
April 14th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
“If Joe Biden had called President Barack Obama a “leading legal scholar” UpNorth would certainly take issue with that”. Thank you from saving me a long post, Insipid.
Apparently, Insipid, you’re still hung up on Zimmerman not being given a breath test. You really ought to familiarize yourself with Florida law on the matter, before you, yet again, beclown yourself. “By Florida statute, law enforcement was prohibited from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time”. This is from the Sanborn, Fl, website. Now, if you’re saying that the Sanborn PD should have violated the law, I would find that shocking,shocking, I tell you.
Yet again, that pesky phrase, Probable Cause, comes up.
I’ll link to the site, and I’d encourage you to read, also follow the links to FL 776.012, 776.013, 776.031 and 776.032. It really explains everything. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
Then there is this, from Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a dyed in the wool, gun-toting conservative, is he? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/
April 14th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Wow! I failed to pick up on anyone’s outrage at this stupid remark about Franken being a legal scholar!! To all who were outraged, I apologize for my failure to correctly assess your true feelings on this topic.
Ya know, ’cause we are all about our feelings here.
(Pssssst. For the record, OWB’s response was a big belly laugh. And it still causes a giggle or two around the edges, especially now that insipid has expressed a complete and utter lack of understanding what I, and perhaps a couple of other folks here, find humorous.)
April 14th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
In #33, it should be Sanford, Fl.
April 14th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Well, it seems like I’m hearing two different arguments from the folks at TAH 1. The law is completely ok and stand your ground laws had nothing to do with Zimmerman not being charged and 2. There’s no way Zimmerman can be charged because stand your ground laws make it perfectly ok to shoot teenagers for walking down the street at 7:30 in the evening being suspisciously black and all.
I do agree with Dershowitz that the police made a mess of this case. I disagree that there was no probable cause. I believe that if a black guy had killed a white teenager walking home from the store there’d be plenty of probable cause.
April 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Nobunny-a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums:
“1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.”
That’s not troll-like. In fact i was responding to this thread. If anything is troll-like it’s the folks trying to bait me with extremperaneous 2nd amendment, Zimmerman arguments.
And you’ll recover from being called an asshole in the same amound of time i’ll recover from being called a troll. However you’ll never recover from actually being an asshole. That’s a permanent affliction for you.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Speaking for myself, I wasn’t trying to bait you, I was pointing out that one of your arguments is easy to refute. When you adopted a logically untenable position on the evidence I called you as I see you. Simple.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Insipid, your MO is to be a troll. Every time you have posted on this forum you have sought to inject emotion. You know what your motivation is.
It is certainly not to logically present an opinion.
Historically, you show up mid-thread and throw in some grenade-like comment.
You were not responding to the thread. You made, and have repeatedly made, a statement only to illicit an emotional response, because that is what you do. You derail discussion by throwing in inflammatory remarks, such as the stupid aside about not being able to walk into a convenience store without being shot, blah, blah, blah.
A get it right child, in your world I would be a right wing bitch.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
“I believe that if a black guy had killed a white teenager walking home from the store there’d be plenty of probable cause.”
“suspiciously black”
YOU are the one injecting race-bating language into a discussion about Biden. Hondo only asked you about the definition of militia, and you launched into one of your typical rants.
Inflammatory. Troll. Punching bag because you are a an idiot.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Let’s see Nobunny, in this thread they refer to Biden as “bite me biden”. Is that straight down the line reporting not entitled to elicit an emotional response? He states categorically as a fact that Biden will be gone in January, that’s not intended to illicit an emotional respnse? Then of course he went on to state that he’s no smarter then coco the chimp. That’s not exactly a page out of Walter Kronkite.
You guys like to play this game where you call the liberals names and then jump on the cross as soon as they say something back.
My first post, if you’ll bother looking was a complete response to the initial thread. What took us off topic was people wanting to debate me on arguments left behind on other threads.
I’m not “injecting” race into anything. I’m pointing out that it’s already there. If you think Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
” If you think Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.”
Insipid, was it your intention to make such a broad statement? Or did you intend to say ” If you think all Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.” ?
Really interested in your answer to that one.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Hey, it is Jonn’s blog. HIS opinion blog.
And you’re only confirming my analysis of your methods by calling police racist in a thread about the stupidity of Biden/Franken.
You have to come onto a blog with views counter to your own to vent your impotent pent-up rage. You insult people at every opportunity then whine when you are treated the same way. Who else but a weakling would refer to themselves as a punching bag on a blog where they know they will receive strong debate?
Come to think of it…
You are not a punching bag: you’re a target.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Translation: if a conservative does it, it’s ok. Regardless of whos blog this is, the opening comment was inflamatory.
I do not insult people at every oportunity. I used to have the policy of ignoring insults, now i have the policy of replying to insults to people that insult me. You’re very first post directed at me was an insult so i insulted. Juvenile? Yes. But so was your first post.
Obviously you have very poor reading comprehension but i’ll review the exact history of how the thread got off topic.
I responded DIRECTLY to the thread on thead 9 (harldy the middle of the thread) on thread 11 you insulted me, i presume because you just knew I’d send the thread off topic. Honda, not i, brought up the 2nd amendment on thread 12 then Upnorth Brought Trayvon/zimmerman into this on thread 33.
Either way, you have a hell of a lot of gall pearl clutching about how “Trollish” i am when your very first thread was pure troll by your own definition.
Here’s what you say a troll is:
troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Here’s your first post: Boy insipid, you were grounded for a long time. You must have broken a serious rule. Mommy finally give your computer back? Are you allowed to go outside yet?
Is post is complete troll: 1. It was certainly inflammatory far moreso than mine 2. Absolutely off topic and it was intended to provoke a response from me and 3 it disrupted normal conversation.
Congratulations, troll, mission accomplished.
April 14th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Thanks for all those sources, Jacobite they REALLY bolster my argument. Here’s Rawle saying that the militia is a military body:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
April 15th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Oh nice. “I’m not the doody head, you’re the doody head!”
Nice rejoinder.
April 15th, 2012 at 1:24 am
Oh yeah insipid I sought to only piss you off, not the whole TAH community.
You didn’t do well on compare/contrast assignments did you?
I think it would be incredibly funny if you are prelaw or in law school.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:36 am
insipid: the POTUS has the authority to call out the Reserve components only because Congress has passed a law delegating him that authority, numbnuts. See 10 USC 12301 through 10 USC 12304. Absent those provisions of Federal law, Congress – not the President – would have to take action to order members of the Reserves to active duty.
Sheesh, you are either by abysmally ignorant or have an IQ somewhere around 90.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:55 am
OK, insipid, let’s see how Federal law defined the “militia” in 1792, and how it’s defined in Federal law today.
2nd Militia Act of 1792, passed 8 May 1792; signed into law 28 February 1795
http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
10 USC 311, effective today: (Google it yourself)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In either case, the definition of militia included “every able bodied eligible male of military age”; today, that extends to females who are members of the National Guard as well. And if you’ll read the second italicized portion of the Militia Act of 1792, not only was every male citizen of military age a member of the militia – they were also technically required to own their own firearm and ammunition (along with other equipment), and to bring same with them when called to duty. What part of “every able bodied citizen of military age” is hard to understand.
By the way: if you’re a US citizen or plan to become one, that means you are a member of the militia, insipid. How’s that make ya feel? (smile)
April 15th, 2012 at 9:08 am
Hondo, I admire, respect, and love your tenacity, sir.
April 15th, 2012 at 9:14 am
Not necessary, Nobunny – but thanks. I absolutely hate seeing people make asinine and ignorant arguments without doing their homework; insipid’s doing exactly that here. And I have to admit I rather enjoy exposing them as lazy, ignorant fools when I can.
April 15th, 2012 at 9:43 am
I can’t believe that this whole conversation is based on the fact that Insipid is bound and determined that he/she can convince us that neither Joe Bite Me nor Al Franken are retarded idiots. They’re both imbeciles and no amount of distraction can change that.
April 15th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Franken wasn’t even good when he made a feeble attempt at comedy. Not funny at all.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Regardless of who can call forth militia, my point was that it CAN be called forth and that by your bizarre interpretation that would mean that anyone can be called forth at any time should Congress- by Constitutional authority- or the President- by authority given to him by Congress- desire it.
The Constitution even goes further dictating that Congress “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.” Again either this is a military body, which makes sense, or Congress has the power to organize and arm and discipline any Joe Schmoo off the street.
While there are two definitions of militia, Congress made it perfectly clear that they were talking about the military definition when they used the term “Well Regulated” as Jacobite’s source Rawle’s stated:
**“That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.”**
I never stated that Congress can’t insist that we possess firearms, they clearly can (they can also insist that we have health insurance). But they can also insist that we don’t
The source that you gave, the Militia act of 1792 bolsters MY claim that they were talking about a MILITARY body, not 5 guys with a pick up truck and gun racks. Some passages of the militia act that you “conveniently” left out that clearly shows they are talking about a military body organized and disciplined the way Congress dictates.
**Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war: And that no officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia shall be compelled to serve more than three months in any one year, nor more than in due rotation with every other able-bodied man of the same rank in the battalion to which be belongs.
Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That every officer, non-commissioned officer or private of the militia, who shall fail to obey the orders of the President of the United States in any of the cases before recited, shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one year’s pay, and not less than one month’s pay, to be determined and adjudged by a court martial; and such officers shall, moreover, be liable to be cashiered by sentence of a court martial: and such non-commissioned officers and privates shall be liable to be imprisoned by the like sentence, or failure of payment of the fines adjudged against them, for the space of one calendar month for every five dollars of such fine.
Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That court martial for the trial of militia be composed of militia officers only.**
And if this wasn’t clear enough here’s the original draft of the 2nd amendment:
***A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.***
Despite your best efforts there’s NOTHING that you’ve shown me that would convince ANY person who is not determined to believe DESPITE the evidence that the Militia they were talking about was not a well regulated, well organized, military body. The evidence is not there, no matter how desperately and flailingly you wish it to be so.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Did not mean that last post to be anonymous. Computer issues.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:34 am
John Lilya: I can’t believe that this whole conversation is based on the fact that Insipid is bound and determined that he/she can convince us that neither Joe Bite Me nor Al Franken are retarded idiots. They’re both imbeciles and no amount of distraction can change that.
Actually, it’s based on the fact that Hondo is likes this kind of debate and i’m obliging him as i stated earlier that i would.
When you write your best-selling novel or win any Emmy award or any Oscar nominations THEN you can call Franken a “retard”.
It’s funny how you right wingers CLAIM to love rugged individualists but always tend to be lap dogs to economic royalists. The last Presidential candidate you had that DIDN’T come from a multi-millionaire-legacy-never-needed-to-work-a-day-in-his-life-spoiled-rich-brat-background was Ronald Reagan. The last President you supported that came from a poor background was Richard Nixon.
Whereas Democrats actually embody the spirit of American excellence you CLAIM to admire but actually hold in contempt: Obama came from a poor background but lifted himself by his own boot straps to become a success. Franken made it into Harvard through academic excellence, George W. Bush made it by being his daddy’s son. Bill Clinton came from a poor background and made himself a success. Joe Biden also came from the middle class and is now vice president.
You guys talk a good game about liking the middle class and American egalitarianism. But really you’re just sycophants to the rich folks and regard anyone who made it on his own as interlopers.
April 15th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
“Whereas Democrats actually embody the spirit of American excellence”? Then you cite selective references. Why didn’t you reference Jawn F’ing Kary, John Rockefeller, Jawn Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Babs Boxer, or the multitude of other millionaires in the dem party? Y’know, either “legacy” millionaires or the gigolos who married their money?
You really can’t be serious claiming that the dems “embody the spirit of American excellence”, can you? If you really believe that, you’re hopeless.
As to your flawed argument about the 2nd Amendment, Answers dot com has the explanantion for the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, “First 10 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, adopted as a group in 1791. They are a collection of guarantees of individual rights and of limitations on federal and state governments that derived from popular dissatisfaction with the limited guarantees of the Constitution”.
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
April 15th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Actually, Insipid, I can call Franken a retard anytime I want. And there’s enough evidence to support my contention. I noticed that you didn’t try to defend Bite Me.
April 15th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
You can call anyone anything you want. Biden needs no “defense”. The man beat an established Republican leader at the age of 32 to become one of the youngest Senators ever elected. The man embodies the “family values” you CLAIM to admire when he raised his children by himself after a horrific car accident that killed his wife and daughter and severely injured his two sons. You can- and do- call anyone anything you want. That’s your right, it’s your blog.
But WHEN your side loses- and loses badly in November don’t wonder why. It’s because folks like you call Teenagers that aren’t alive to defend themeselves “thugs”. It’s because of Rush’s attacks on women and Romney’s attacks on Hispanics. Your side is playing the politics of division and you’re only serving to unite the majority of us against YOU.
So go ahead, call Vice President Joe Biden and President Obama all the names you want. You just show people what you are and what you’re made of, which isn’t much. Make my day.
April 15th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Yeah, Insipid, because we’re electing the next American Idol in November, not the leader of the free world.
April 15th, 2012 at 3:53 pm
“Make my day”? Why, how very stand your ground of you, Insipid.
April 15th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
One of the people you mentioned, John Edwards, IS a self made man. Other than that, i pretty much agree that the man is pond scum. While Senator Kerry is not a self made man, he did not come from wealth and privilege the way Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush did.
The fact is that OUR standard bearers know what it is like to HAVE to earn a living, yours do not.
April 15th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
I feel no urge to shoot John Lilyea for our disagreement, UpNorth. So not “Stand your ground” at all.
April 15th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
John Lilyea: Yeah, Insipid, because we’re electing the next American Idol in November, not the leader of the free world.
Despite the obvious stupidity of George W. Bush the GOP choose him as its standard bearer based solely on the idea that he’s the guy we’d like to have a beer with. Don’t lecture me about American Idol.
April 15th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Yeah, anyone who thinks that George Bush is an idiot, but Joe Biden is some sort of gifted savant, and John Edwards is a self-made man is really worth arguing with.
April 15th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
You got some documetnation in your pocket there, ins, so we could actually compare the current to any of the formers? Gee, it might be kinda nice to see some grade cards, transcripts, or anything which could give us a clue, but there just aren’t any.
Does that mean that his academic career is a lie? Without proof positive, it is just as logical to assume that he never attended anywhere that he claims as it is to assume that he’s telling the truth. Or something in between the two extremes.
How does that work for you? You assume he’s telling the truth and I’ll assume he’s lying. Get back to us when you have something substantive to share.
Until then, since you continue to act like a troll, I can only conclude that you are indeed still a troll. Feeding trolls is fun for a while, but then it just seems so pitiful.
April 15th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@45 – I may not have been clear enough about exactly what I was taking issue with, my bad.
My issue was not with whether or not a militia is a different physical body when addressed in different parts of the Constitution, my issue was with what I perceive to be your disagreement with the protected individual right to own firearms. Each of the examples I gave you supports firearms ownership as an individual right, an individual right that supports a collective responsibility.
It should be noted that trying to interpret individual phrases from the 18th century requires some research into definitions peculiar to the times. As a for instance, “Well regulated” as written in the 2nd Amendment, did not mean controlled with regulations, it meant “Well trained”. The concept being that a well armed populace would have the means to provide riflemen in a time of need who had seen to their own individual training by virtue of familiar regular use.
Now since you seem to have a bit of respect for Harvard, how about the opinion of a Harvard Law Professor?
[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm “We the People” so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes–not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons–a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by ? 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action.
(Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]
The most basic premise is that of self defense, the Founders recognized we all have a natural law right to protect ourselves. Rights are not given, you are born with them. They may be modified by collective assent, but may not be forcibly taken from you unless you forfeit them in some manner.
And yes, I’m one of those that you categorize as a ‘nut’ for believing we should be allowed to arm ourselves in a manner that would give our own government pause before attempting to impose any type of tyrannical program against us. That doesn’t mean Nukes either, it’s rather hyperbolic to suggest something like that, and shows a lack of understanding of military operational matters generally, and rebellions in particular.
April 15th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Crap, sorry about the missed tag. I hate it when I do that.
April 15th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
And Insipid, you still haven’t answered my question in post #19, or post #42.
I’m patiently waiting.
April 15th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
As far as #19 goes. I do NOT believe that the second amendment has ANYTHING to do with Stand Your Ground laws. My main beef, believe it or not, is not your interpretation of the second amendment but more to do with your expanding it to not only allow you to have a weapon but as also somehow allowing you to use it without ever having to face repurcussions for it.
No, i do not mean to say a blanket statement regarding all cops. And i’m sure you get similarly outraged when Conservatives make blanket statements about liberals.
April 15th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
“While Senator Kerry is not a self made man, he did not come from wealth and privilege the way Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush did”.
Well, first off, I guess you missed this. http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq10-3.htm
Second, you’re right, Kerry didn’t earn it, he married it. Pelosi and Boxer used the government to enhance themselves. So, “OUR standard bearers know what it is like to HAVE to earn a living, yours do not” doesn’t really apply, now does it?
April 15th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Pelosi and Boxer were never our nominees for President, President Obama, John Kerry and Bill Clinton were. Nice to see you acknowlege someone being a genuine war hero, as George H. W. Bush definately was. It would be nice if some of your cohorts would pay the same respect to John Kerry.
In any case, the only self-made men Presidents that have been around in the past 30 years have been Democrats.
April 15th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
That’s not what I asked in 19, here’s what I asked –
“Can you give me an example of how the Second Amendment has ever prevented you from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed? Can you give me an example of how it has done that to anyone?”
April 15th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Well, Trayvon Martin was stalked, shot and killed and according to many of the folks here the second amendment gave Zimmerman that “right”.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Jawn F’ing Kary a war hero? Puh-leeze. Lots of his shipmates would disagree with you, among a host of others.
“In any case, the only self-made men Presidents that have been around in the past 30 years have been Democrats”. Stop. Sides. Hurt. Laughing.
As to your continued mis-informed opinion on Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman, saying it loudly and often won’t make it so.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
There’s no “shipmates” that would disagree with me. There’s ONE guy and a host of other actual shipmates that did and do call him a hero. The other Swift Boat Veterans did not serve with John Kerry. The claims made in the Swift Boat hit piece has been thoroughly examined and completely debunked. John Kerry was a war hero, it is fact. Once again, you guys only respect the right troops. Troops that disagree with you can go to hell.
You can laugh as much as you want, but George W. Bush would be flipping burgers at a greasy spoon right now if he wasn’t the son of George W. Bush and the grandson of Presscott Bush and Mitt Romney would be selling cars at one of the Auto Dealers President Obama saved if he weren’t the son of George Romney.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Sorry, son of George H.W. Bush.
April 15th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
By the way the ONE shipmate that served with Kerry, Steven Gardner, was not present during any of the events that earned John Kerry his medals or any of his three purple hearts.
April 15th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
insipid: I really have trouble believing you are as dense as your comment 54 above indicates.
What part of “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard” is unclear?
Yes, you’re reading that right, dipstick – that does indeed mean that every swinging dick in the USA between the ages of 17 and 45 who (1) isn’t already a member of the Federal armed forces and who is either (2) a US citizen, or (3) has declared their intent to become a US citizen,is, by Federal law, a member of the militia of the United States. There is no requirement that members of the militia of the United States be enrolled in any military unit whatsoever. If they are in a military unit, then they’re in the National Guard – and they’re members of the organized militia. If they’re not in the National Guard, they’re in the unorganized militia. With the exception the fact that today racial equality is operative, the situation is no different today than it was on 1 March 1795. If you’re in that demographic, under Federal law you are a member of the militia – period.
Today, militia membership has been further extended by Federal law to include National Guard members over the age of 45 (that’s what 32 USC 313 covers), and to female members of the National Guard – today, those groups are also members of the militia of the United States. Females not affiliated with the National Guard are not.
And yes: Congress does indeed have the authority to call to military service “any Joe off the street” if necessary. Ever hear of a thing called the “draft”, or the Selective Service System? Let me clue ya in, sunshine – that’s exactly what happened to one helluva lot of guys prior to 1972 or so.
And in case you were wondering: there’s a reason I have only mentioned the National Guard and haven’t discussed the Army/Navy/Air Force/Marine Reserves. Members of the Federal Reserves are not militia members. They’re already members of the Federal Armed Forces.
Oh, and that phrase “while in service of the United States” you make such a big deal over in comment 54 above? All that means is “after they’ve been called up”. Call-ups of the militia can occur either by unit (National Guard) or individually (individual draft or individual National Guard callups). And the rest of your rant in that comment concerns issues of how militia members will serve after they’ve been called up. It has no bearing on the definition of who is – and is not – a member of the militia.
The original draft of the 2nd Amendment is not particularly relevant, either. The original drafts of many laws are very different from what finally gets enacted. And only that which is properly enacted has force of law.
According to Federal law, you’re a member of the militia, insipid – like it or not. Congress has the power to order your ass to active duty, whether you like it or not. All they have to do is re-institute the draft. So keep yer powder dry and knapsack handy, youngster; Uncle Sam just might call you!
April 15th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Fine, Hondo, continue to pretend that the passages in the Constitution AND in the 1792 act that CLEARLY state that we’re talking about people CALLED for service and not “every swinging dick”. Ignore all the parts where it talks about officers and enlistments and privates and being “in the service of the United States” ignore the part about pay and how it should match the pay of Federal officers and enlisted men. Because you gun nuts are good at ignoring parts of laws that are “inconvenient” hence the NRA’s leaving out that pesky militia part of the amendment. It’s too damn inconvenient.
And the reason why you should ignore it? Because that way you can continue to pretend that the liberal did not make a fool of you in your major issue. That way you can pretend that you haven’t been forced to make such a stupid fucking argument as to pretend that somehow you’re already in the military BEFORE you’ve been drafted and are ALREADY subject to military law. And now you’re pretending that the DRAFTING process does not matter and you’ll probably say that the notes that CLEARLY state they were talking about a military service and protecting the MILITIA does not matter. I mean really you are desperate aren’t you? You wanted this fight and now that it’s not going your way you’re having a desperate little tantrum holding your guns really tight and thinking about doing very obscene things with them to make the bad man stop making a fool of you.
You are wrong, you’ve been proven wrong with your own sources you’ve been proven wrong and you don’t have the class to admit that you’ve been proven wrong.
The militia in the Constitution is a military body it’s clear in the constitution itself, it’s clear from the federalist papers it’s clear from the notes on the convention it is clear that it does NOT pertain to every “swinging dick” and no amount of stamping your feet and or cutting and pasting SELECTED parts of bills will make it so.
Also, remember to make sure the safety is on before you start felating your gun.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
insipid: Buddy, you’re hopeless. I’ll spell it out for you: the first sentence of the 2nd 1792 Militia Act defines the “Who” covered by the law. The rest of the act defines what will be done, and how. The rest of the act has no bearing whatsoever on the definition of who; that definition stands alone. That’s crystal clear to anyone with even a marginal ability to comprehend written English and 3 or more working brain cells. It’s so obvious even Stevie Wonder can see that.
If you’re unable to figure out that for yourself, well, God help ya fella.
I really wonder sometimes if you’re actually typing your own comments here, or if you’re having a drunk wino from skid row interpret and transcribe what would otherwise be unintelligible grunts, squeals, ughs, and nonsensical babbling from you for our benefit. If so, tell them they need to work on their logical reasoning and reading comprehension, because they’re making you look like a fool.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
And you need to work on your reading skills. Here is the part of the act which defines tha militia and, as you can se the
“That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively BE ENROLLED in the militia, by the CAPTAIN OR COMMANDING OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.
So yes, the definition is CLEARLY stating that i am right and you are wrong. It’s dealing with a MILITARY body. Deal with it.
And don’t bother with your next response which will surely be “Well, if you skip every other word and read the law sideways you can CLEARLY see they intended….”
Whatever standards you give, whether it’s JUST going by the definition or reading the entire bill the act is referring to MILITARY people ENROLLED in service. That’s the plain langauage of the text.
April 15th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Insipid wrote – “Well, Trayvon Martin was stalked, shot and killed and according to many of the folks here the second amendment gave Zimmerman that “right”.
Really? I can’t find an instance where anyone here said that, could you point it out for me? And even if you do find an instance of someone espousing that, it still doesn’t answer the question, it’s simply an example of what someone said.
Most of the regulars here are perfectly aware of what right is actually covered by the 2nd Amendment, and stalking and shooting someone isn’t it. More hyperbole from Insipid.
Still patiently waiting.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:01 am
Honestly the best thing to do is just ignore insipid. I don’t know how he made it as far as he did in life with his head that fucking far up his ass. Everything I’ve seen from him so far has shown you just can’t take him seriously. He’s just a troll. Don’t feed him.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Insipid I thought I told you to go eat a dick…no wait that was Joe. Sorry I get you two asshats confused. By all means you can join him in the meal of dick…you two sound so much alike.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Here’s a blog post right here stating that Stand Your Ground laws are actually a Right:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=29371
Oh, and if you were the person who posted anonymously, i apologize. I thought i was addressing Hondo. I don’t insult people unless if they insult first.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:13 am
Redacted, people can tie there own shoe laces, you don’t need to tell them who they can and cannot speak with.
And Jason I thought i told you to go fuck yourself. See, i can talk tough to over the internet. But unlike you i’m not a sniveling little coward piece of shit.
And the reason why you get “confused” is because you have shit for brains.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:18 am
Well that was just some friendly advice, i’m not telling anyone to do anything. I figured you’d fuck that one up.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:24 am
I’m with OWB and Redacted – we should stop feeding this troll. Back to your full time job at Starbucks, insipid.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Well, i actually did NOT want to engage in a 2nd amendment debate, i’m obliging Hondo who’s been pouting ever since.
If you will actually bother to look you will see that 1. I never insult first(and no, insulting conservative in general or a piece of legislation people like is NOT the same as a direct insult) and 2. I’m never the one to take anything off topic. Generally if people treat me with respect I’ll do the same. Yes, i’ll disagree but i’m capable of doing it without being disagreeable. If you want to engage in name calling, i’m fine with that, if you want to engage in debate without that then i’m fine with that too.
So no, i did not “fuck it up”. I just pointed out that i am not a troll. Many of you, though not all, just have tantrums when someone disagrees.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:29 am
Yes, you did fuck it up and yes, you’re a troll. Bye bye now.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:40 am
Ok, i’m calling bullshit right here. There is absolutely no way you’re a lawyer nobunny. What’s your closing argument: AND in conclusion i’d like to state that my opponent is s doodie head!
I mean really first you come up with a zinger about me being allowed to be on the computer and now a lame-ass Starbucks joke? Really how many hours did it take you to come up with that? And did you leave a red mark slapping your knee?
Here’s a little hint for you: When you’re putting someone down actually try and make sure that it’s not such a lame ass put-down that it makes you seem like a fucking moron for stating it. Either that or you should change your name from nobunny to nofunny.
Here let me give you your next three lame-ass insults so you don’t strain your brain anymore:
Hey, insipid, were you able to stop picking your nose long enough to write a message?
Hey insipid, i hope you didn’t get grease on your keyboard from your McDonalds job!
Hey, insipid, did you get in trouble when your mommy caught you saying the swear words?
I mean really there’s no way your a lawyer because you’re not even smart enough to be a decent troll.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:40 am
Like i really wanted to talk to you anyway, redacted. See ya.
April 16th, 2012 at 6:22 am
From his reaction, it looks like your comment about Starbucks stung ol insipid a bit, Nobunny. Who’d have guessed that insipid worked in the fast-food/service industry?
Yeah, you’re right. We should have seen that he was another sophomoric (literally) English lit or sociology major or grad working at the only job for which he’s qualified by education and intellect. No surprise there.
insipid: you’ve studied Goebbels well, though you have neither his smarts nor his rhetorical skill. You’ve been repeatedly proven here – with legal references – that you’re wrong as a matter of both language and law, yet you keep insisting that black is right, truth is falsehood, and that one plus one is not two, but whatever number you want it to be. With you, the “big lie” principle of argument is still alive and well. You just don’t have the skill to pull it off adequately.
That “be enrolled” clause you make such a bother about by quoting it in all caps above, if you’ll bother to read both it and the rest of the paragraph, only means be formally enumerated and notified of obligation under the law. It imposes no requirement on the individual militia member in and of itself. Rather, it’s actually more a requirement imposed on the States than individuals, since the states – not the Federal government – run the organized militia components even today (e.g., the National Guard elements) unless they are in active Federal service, just as they did in 1795. The Federal government’s role – then as now – was only in prescribing standards of who/what/how for the militia when not in Federal service. (Although today, the Federal government does considerably more in the way of equipping and providing other resources for that small portion of the population that is the organized militia.) Indeed, one could argue that this requirement for individual notification contained in the 2nd Militia Act of 1792 is possibly the first example of an unfunded Federal mandate on the States.
Further, the clause is not strictly necessary. The rest of the law is unaffected if it is removed. It only requires formal notification and (maybe) the recording of names – nothing else. The responsibilities of individuals under the law remains the same were it to be removed.
Talking with you on this subject is like arguing with a fence post. And you’re showing about the same level of intellect as a fence post in your comments above.
April 16th, 2012 at 7:30 am
Hondo, I just hope he doesn’t play poker with real money.
I never did claim to be an attorney, but it must be hard to read when your eyes are brimming with hot, angry tears.
April 16th, 2012 at 10:07 am
And Jason I thought i told you to go fuck yourself. See, i can talk tough to over the internet. But unlike you i’m not a sniveling little coward piece of shit. Really? Are you sure, insipid?
Oh, did Kary achieve his, in your eyes, hero status for that trip to Cambodia, over Christmas? That trip that never happened? Look up Sa Dec on a map of Viet Nam, that’s as close as Kary ever got to Cambodia, contrary to what you think.
April 16th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Insipid I have never treated you with respect and I resent the implication that I ever did. You sir are an boner biting unclefucker, and really don’t add anything here other than a place for me to type insults. Unfortunatly, yes I do have to “hide” behind a keyboard , because I don’t have the opportunity to say this to your face.
April 16th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Nobunny…quite the contrary, I hope he does play with real money…lots of it. You know the phrase…there are those who know, those who don’t know, but that dumb bastard don’t even suspect.
April 16th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Above, insipid the Clueless makes one statement that I can’t let go unchallenged.
That is a statement to the effect (comment #54) that Congress has the power to force people to purchase a firearm, or health insurance, if it so chooses.
This statement is incredibly foolish, on multiple levels. However, it’s often heard, and is usually justified by referencing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That represents an incredibly distorted and, frankly, a disingenuous and dangerous interpretation of the Commerce clause.
“Regulate” and “compel participation” are not equivalent terms. Regarding commerce, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the US constitution. It does not have the power to compel participation.
And please – spare me that bogus “Wait – you have a legal requirement to by auto insurance or property insurance!”. Yes, you do – IF you choose to drive, or own property under specified conditions. Those are about the only cases I’m aware of where having insurance of any type is legally compulsory. Where they exist, those requirements are State requirements, not Federal. And they’re only legally compulsory when you choose to engage in behaviors requiring them – e.g., own a car, own a business, have a mortgage. An individual has a choice as to whether they own a car, has a mortgage, or owns a business; it’s also possible to live without doing any of those. Engaging in those are therefore the result of voluntary actions; the state can require insurance in those cases for the protection of others you might injure.
In contrast, I haven’t yet figured out how to live without breathing. And requiring someone to purchase health insurance – or anything else, for that matter – simply as a condition of breathing is not regulation of commerce. That’s compelled participation.
Regardless of political leanings, all Americans should pray that the SCOTUS gets this one right and holds that Congress does not have the power to compel involuntary individual participation in commerce. Why? Well, here are a few of the other things that can be justified using that argument (e.g., tangential effect of behavior on commerce). And I wouldn’t advocate ANY of them:
a. A requirement for all Americans to buy a house and a car, regardless of their desire to own and maintain either type of property or ability to afford same. Why? Because this would stimulate the real estate sector (commerce again). Hey, why not? After all, according to insipid the government has the authority order you to buy something you don’t want under the guise of regulating commerce.
b. Compulsory health-club membership and mandatory annual weigh-ins, with a $1,000 per pound “penalty” for all persons whose weight exceeds some Federally-determined level based on “healthy BMI”. Why? Excessive impact of overweight persons on interstate commerce through excessive consumption of healthcare resources by said overweight persons. Think of it as just an additional healthcare requirement, with the same type of mandate (and same type of penalties) as proposed under “Obamacare” for non-compliance with health insurance coverage requirements.
c. Compulsory participation in behavior modification and/or hormonal therapy (at personal expense) for those who choose to engage in homosexual activity (or a huge annual financial penalty in lieu of same) in order to “cure” them of these urges. The same justification applies as for overweight persons. In fact, given that unprotected homosexual sex is known to be one of the most effective means of transmission of the AIDS virus, that justification would be even stronger than for overweight persons. Again: there’s potential impact on commerce, so the government according to insipid would have the authority to force you to buy something you didn’t want in order to mitigate that impact.
d. Mandatory resident “cold turkey” treatment (at personal expense) for any individual found to be engaging in IV drug use or who smokes, regardless of desire to attend or ability to pay – or a hefty administrative penalty (say $5,000 per year) for not attending. Same justification as for the ban on homosexual activities.
e. Mandatory federal penalties of $1000 per MPH over the posted speed limit if caught speeding. Yer wasting gas, buddy; that impacts commerce.
f. And continuing the subject of traffic: mandatory Federal penalties of $1000 per MPH for driving slower than 5 MPH under the posted speed limit. Hey, driving too slows down traffic – thus impeding commerce.
g. A requirement to drive your mandatory automobile (more on that below) 25 miles daily on average, keep records, and submit records to the federal government for recording and analysis – with penalties of $100 per mile outside a +/- 10% tolerance. Gotta control how much people are driving, ’cause that affects commerce. And we need to know so that we can project road improvements, etc . . . , too – which also impacts commerce.
h. A mandate that each adult American purchase a V8-powered full-size pickup truck or SUV annually, or pay a $5000 “new vehicle avoidance penalty”. This would stimulate both the automobile and oil industries. (Just think of it as a form of government-mandaded “auto health” and “recession-avoidance” coverage.) Commerce!
i. Require each American to attend college either full-time or part-time until they achieve a Doctoral degree in some field. That would stimulates the economic health of the education sector and provide a better-educated workforce. Again, commerce!
Yes, these are all somewhat extreme examples – but not the most extreme I could come up with. That’s by intent in order to illustrate the point. Because if the Congress has the power to compel involuntary participation in a particular type of commercial activity merely as a condition of breathing because that activity would “benefit commerce”, then there are precious few legal and practical limits on what Congress may require people to do – and thus potentially no individual actions or choices that are safe from future Congressional control.
That prospect should scare anyone who professes to love personal freedom absolutely shitless.
April 16th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
It has been but a few short years since most Americans saw the compulsion to buy health insurance as no more likely than any of your examples, or consuming brocolli, for that matter, Hondo.
Huge distinction needs to be made here – Congress has the power to do many things, and those things vary depending upon many factors such as who is in control, local priorities, needs/wants of the country, perhaps even the phase of the moon. The real question is not of their power but of their authority. The Constitution limits their authority. We, the great unwashed, determine their power.
April 21st, 2012 at 9:54 pm
So basically everytime i nail you to the wall, Honda and reveal how specious your first amendment arguments are the answer is always 1. That part of the law isn’t really that important or 2. The founders didn’t mean what it seems like they said they meant. Basically you can only make your case by leaving out inconvenient words like “Well regulated Militia” and “Be enrolled”.
As far as your arguments about the ACA goes they’re equally moronic and reveal you to be a light intellect, really not worthy of anyones time.
The ways in which health insurance is not like Brocoli:
1. I cannot go into a supermarket and demand that I be given 20,000 dollars worth of Brocoli for free. I can go into the emergency room and demand 20,000 dollars worth of healthcare for free.
2. If you decide not to buy brocoli (i’m sure your diet consists mostly of beer and wing-dings) the cost of brocoli does not change. If you decide not to buy health care it inreases my costs about a 1000 dollars.
3. A person can go his whole life without using brocoli (i’m sure you have) but it’s virtually impossible to go your whole life without health care.
4. Brocoli is not subject to adverse selection. A young person will not avoid eating brocoli and then try to buy a thousand bushels should he get cancer or hit by a bus. But he WILL attempt to get health care should he have an emergency, thus the mandate is necessary for there to be a no pre-existing exclusion. Mandates make it impossible to game the system.
In that way health insurance is EXACTLY like car insurance. Your refusing to buy it adversely effects everyone else, thus Congress is perfectly allowed to mandate that everyone has it. The same way they mandate that we buy SSI and Medicare. It does and has served the greater good.
Oh and if you don’t believe anything coming from those Commie Pinkoes, LBJ and FDR how about John Adams? Who last i looked was a founding father who mandated that seamen buy health insurance in 1798:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
April 21st, 2012 at 10:00 pm
Also, it would be nice, though certainly not expected, if you understood the law, Hondo. The mandate doesn’t “compel” anything. There is no criminal penalty if you don’t pay it, it’s merely a tax which you can avoid paying by buying health insurance. It’s similar to the tax credit you can get for buying a home or having a kid.
And the tax is entirely fair. If you refuse to buy health insurance you cost the rest of society. Therefore the rest of society has the right to demand recompense.
April 21st, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Just one of many problems with your logic, or lack thereof. As has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions, but you seem to be hard of hearing or simply refuse to accept the obvious – NO, YOU ARE NOT MANDATED TO BUY AUTO INSURANCE!!! You are only obliged to buy auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive an auto.
This issue remains that for the first time in history, we are all being mandated to buy something (it matters not a whit what that something is) based only upon our having an ability to breath. It doesn’t matter at all if the something we are being mandated to buy is brocolli, twinkies or tiddlywinks.
Were any of those seamen forced to be seamen? Unless the entire population of the country at that time were seamen and had become so involuntarily, then there is no comparison.
April 21st, 2012 at 10:47 pm
But again, it’s NOT a “mandate” in the truest sense of the word. If you refuse to buy health insurance you don’t go to jail, you just don’t get the tax break. Just like you don’t get the tax break if you don’t buy a house or have a kid. The government isn’t “forcing” you to do either of these things, they’re just encouraging it through tax policy.
The tax is also a VERY limited tax only applying to people who 1. are rich enough not to qualify for the subsidies and 2. Still refuse to buy health insurance despite having the money to do so. So the notion that EVERYONE is mandated is just false. We’re talking a pretty small segment of the population.
The tax is a fair tax well within the functions of government to provide for the general welfare and to regulate commerce. If the courts can mandate what seeds are grown in a farmers own field then they can certainly mandate this.
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:56 am
THE most aspect of the car v. health insurance argument is that Car Insurance is a state mandated issue. If Taxachussetts residents want to vote in such a mandate, the state of Taxachussetts has the Constitutional authority to do so, but neither they nor the Federal Government, ie. Congress/Executive branch, has the Constitutional authority to mandate either car or health insurance.
This is the same reason that the Congress cannot define marriage, short of what it pays out in employee benefits of the Federal Govt, because contract law, including marriage, falls under State, not Federal law. It is also why, when the voters of California amend their Constitution to define marriage, the Federal Government has no authority to change that, not even in the Federal court system but neither do the states have the authority to order the government to pay benefits in any manner the Federal Employer deems inappropriate.
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:06 am
I’m sorry, but yeah, they do have that power. They have the unquestioned power to tax, they have the unquestioned power to regulate commerce which health care certainly falls under and they have the power to make all laws necessary and proper to promote the general welfare, which health care certainly does.
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:45 am
Hell, Inspipid, if I could, I’d give you a printed copy of the Constitution, even though I was uncertain you could comprehend even that simple English.
Quote me the parts it authorizes “unquestioned” taxation & mandated health insurance. Not a pair of words, but the entirety of the clause, you somehow think makes it unquestionable they have the power.
And just for shits and grins, tell me what you think INTERstate means in the Constitutional context.
April 22nd, 2012 at 2:27 am
So basically you’ve got nothing so you’re resorting to the standard name-calling. Or maybe you can explain how the government can encourage people to buy homes, have kids, buy SUV’s but can’t encourage people to buy health insurance?
As far as the Constitution goes, here’s some passages for you:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
This definately satisfies that requirement.
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Healthcare is 1/6th of our economy and since you never know where and when you’re going to get sick or get into an accident
Then there’s this passage you MAY have heard of:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Certainly having health insurance for everyone promotes the general welfare.
Plus you’re conveniently forgetting that we’re ALL being forced to pay for healthcare NOW. We pay for the people who refuse to buy health insurance when they go to the emergency room. All the PPACA does is transfer that cost from all of us at the back end to the ricipient of the care at the front end.
April 22nd, 2012 at 2:31 am
Oh, the reason WHY hospitals MUST treat people in emergency rooms is because Congress passed a law mandating that under the well known pinko-commie Rondald Reagan.
I’ll ask the question again, if the government can, through the tax code, encourage people to buy a certain car or own a home or have a kid, why can’t they encourage people to have insurance?
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:01 am
Insipid I am glad that you are not a breeder, because with your stupidity I would not want you genes passed down. So rather than eating a dick how’s about you go slam your balls in a car door just to be sure your genetic information doesn’t get passed along.
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:29 am
insipid: Have you even bothered to read the actual portions of the law that are being discussed here? Or are you just parroting what your professors and friends tell you the law says? Hell, I’d bet you can’t even tell us what parts of the US Code (1) levy the individual mandate, and (2) set the penalties for not having individual health insurance. Unless you can, and have actually read them, you don’t really know what you’re talking about. If that’s the case you’re merely ignorantly parroting talking points developed by others vice actually thinking for yourself. Again.
And here, it’s obvious you haven’t actually bothered to read the operative parts of the law. What’s being done here isn’t taxation. Rather, an individual is being assessed a “penalty” (look it up in Federal law, dipstick – it’s not a tax, and the law is very careful not to refer to the Obamacare penalties as taxes). However, this so-called “penalty” is not a penalty for non-payment or late payment of any mandatory tax. Rather, it’s being illigetemately assessed on individuals who decline to participate in commerce by exercising their right not to purchase a product they do not desire to buy and for which they have determined they do not need – but are being penalized for not doing so nontheless merely because they are breathing. The Obama administration is using the IRS to deprive persons of property here without due process of law, in violation of the 14th Amendment. It’s no different than leving a penalty on someone in any year they didn’t buy a new US-built car or truck.
There are legal ways to do this, but having the IRS assess tax penalties on things that don’t exist as de facto taxes vice collecting lawful taxes isn’t among them.
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:30 am
Above was me.
And insipid: wanna guess what party controlled Congress – and thus the passage of laws – from 1981 through 1989? I’ll give you a hint: it wasn’t the GOP.
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:12 am
WOTN: insipid seems incapable of grasping the fact that parts of laws are explanation of intent and do not grant authority. He’s also incapable of grasping the concepts of specifically enumerated powers and powers reserved for the people and subordinate political junctions (e.g., “States”). He’s apparently OK with living in a dictatorship that rules every aspect of individual conduct without legal or practical limit.
Perhaps we should take up a collection so he can move to North Korea or the Taliban strongholds in Pakistan and see how that works in practice (non-refundable one-way fare, of course). I’ll fund the first $100 of his airfare.
He particularly fails to grasp that Congress and the Federal government only have authority under the Constitution where that authority is specifically granted. He also fails to grasp the fact that those portions of the Constitution he loves to quote here – specifically, the entire preamble and the first part of the 2nd Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .”) are merely statements of intent that neither convey authority nor restrict individual action. He seems to think that they do both.
In short: insipid is merely a tool and talking head who speaks without understanding. His comments are tales “told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” His posts above have already proven him to have limited understanding and a regrettable unwillingness to research an issue and think for himself. He’d prefer to parrot DU pablum vice take the time to think for himself – and maybe find out he’s been lied to and is wrong.
My guess is he’s some undergraduate student struggling to stay off academic probation while attending some second-tier state university on a Pell grant or student loan (or on Mom & Dad’s dime) while working at Starbucks or McDonalds part-time for beer money who’s (1) drunk the Marxist cool-aid and (2) changed his major from something worthwhile to English lit or sociology (or some other nebulous social sciences/arts/humanities field) because he couldn’t cut it in a more worthwhile undergraduate major. At least that’s how he comes off here.
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:50 am
Hondo, your skills of observation and analysis are duly noted. I’m out of pearls to toss, but there’s a very basic English construction that he has failed to understand:
The passage you quoted, Insipid, states to regulate “AMONGST the States” and with foreign powers. It does not in any way say WITHIN the states, or amongs individuals.
It states “general welfare of THE NATION,” not the social welfare of individuals, nor in any way allow for what is today known as the welfare system. This clause of the Constitution imparts a fidiciuary duty upon those that are elected to office to do what is in the best interest of the Nation, i.e. to prevent illegal drug importation, illegal immigration, to do what is in the interest of the Nation, not the individual politicians best financial or political interest.
And your tax clause? It says those must be “UNIFORM” throughout the Nation. This is hardly the case, even if health insurance were a tax.
As Hondo so aptly points out, you have failed to comprehend that only those things which are specifically authorized the Federal Government, i.e. only those things that at a minimum cross state lines, can be regulated by the FEDERAL government, and all things not authorized to it, are RESERVED for State Government, or THE PEOPLE.
And again, I remind you that “We the People” refers to who has authorized and limited the Federal Government, to operate ONLY within the parameters of the Constitution, and hence who has authority to remove those politicians from government. We the People have limited the authority of government by Our God-Given rights, or “Providence,” as we understand that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but some form of government must exist, despite the corruptive nature of it.
So, while NY or CA voters can establish through their own state constitutional processes a Health Insurance requirement, or define the limitations of a marriage contract, the Federal government has NO authority to do so, and the citizens of those states that don’t like those laws have the Freedom to vote with their feet, to move, to states that don’t have such invasive governments. But the voters of CA or NY do not have the authority to tax the Citizens of Tennessee or Texas, for their health care, no matter how many of their voters they fool into thinking its free or good to force people to buy things.
April 29th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Hondo @ 111: Yes, i’m extremely well aware of the law and all of its provisions, much moreso than you. The fact is that it IS a tax whether or not they actually cal it that or not. There is a long, endless list of SC cases that say that the Constitutionality of a tax law depends upon how it functions, not on its precise labels.
And the mandate functions as a tax. It’s enforced by the tax code and it will be reported on your tax return.
This is one of those instances where both parties are being somewhat dishonest because of hopes to further themeselves politically. President Obama refuses to call it a tax because it- along with the increased taxes on cigarretes is a clear-cut violation of his pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than 250k. The GOP won’t call it a tax because they think it will make it easier to kill the law in courts and they think mandate makes the law sound extreme and unhear of.
Also, dipstick, you’re completly wrong in your assessment that healthcare is something people don’t want to buy. They DO absolutely want to buy healthcare (hence its popularity in Massachussetts and other countries and places which have mandates) the problem isn’t that people don’t want healthcare its that people can’t afford it. This is a problem the PPACA solves by bringing everyone into the pool.
As far as the passage of EMTALA goes are you saying that Rondald Reagan was just a bystander? That somehow he didn’t have the veto pen in 1986? That there was no way he could of killed that bill if he wanted to? He could of he didn’t want to.
And, by the way, i’m PRAISING Reagan for this. I only wish there were more sane Republicans like him today. Maybe YOU want to live in a country where emergency rooms kick people with gunshot wounds to the curb if they can’t prove that they can pay, but I don’t. That’s not the United States. We don’t ask dying people for their Visa Cards, we help them.
Which brings us to the question WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU WANT? You don’t like this market-based aproach, you almost certainly don’t want single payer, do you want ONLY rich people to have health care? Do you want insurance companies to be able to kick anyone off the roles for any reason forevermore?
This law was developed by the Heritage Foundation, it was supported by Bob Dole and Orin Hatch and Newt Gingrich and a host of Republicans once and now that Barack Hussein Obama wants to do it it’s all of a sudden tyranny?
The healthcare bill is ALREADY working, it’s already saving lives and- more importantly to you- saving money. Do you want the Seniors who are getting money back from the donut hole to return it? The kids who are no longer barred because of pre-existing conditions to be kicked off the again? Do you want the 2.5 million newly insured people between 18-26 to have to give up their insurance?
Basically Alen Grayson was right, your plan seems to be that people should just die quickly.
April 29th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Insipid don’t you have a burger to flip or something?
April 29th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
You have it completely backwards WOTN. It’s the Blue States that by and large support the Red-States. Typically the Blue States are the States that pay in more the The federal government then they get back and the Red States that are the leaches.
As far as your spurious 10th amendment talking points. The fact is that the Commerce Clause has been used to enforce prohibitions against whites only bathrooms, it’s been used to even mandate how much a farmer can grow for HIS OWN consumption. The fact is that this is WELL within the power of the Constitution and there’s already precedent with government enforcing people to buy Social Security insurance and medicare insurance.
The Social Safety net has been establishe as being Constitutional. Deal with it.
As far as freedom goes, the Federal Government has done more for providing freedom for more people then any other force on earth. It was the State Government’s that were for continuing slavery into infinity and the Federal Government that eventually ended it.
It was the Federal government that instituted Social Security freeing millions of seniors from horrible poverty. It was the Federal Government, not a collection of States that rid Europe and Japan of totalitarian dictators. It was the Federal Government that ended Jim Crow laws (using the Commerce clause quite a bit i might add) and it was the Federal Government that gave us Medicare and Medicaid freeing millions of seniors from having to worry about getting ill and dying on the streets or incumbering their children with never-ending debt.
So no, i’m not buying into your idiotic comparisons between the Federal Government doing things to help people being comparable to the Taliban. The ones who are most Taliban-like is Conservatives who see eye to eye with the Taliban on gays, women, and making this land a theocracy.
April 29th, 2012 at 5:06 pm
@116: Do you really think that bothers me Jason? It doesn’t. It does amuse me however. For two weeks you Conservatives were on the feinting couch regarding Hillary Rosen’s comments. “How dare she look down upon the contribution of someone who decides to be a single mother!?!? HARUMPH!” “How snobbish!” “How Elitist!!!”Doesn’t she recognize that raising kids is work too!”
Now you all are revealing yourselves to be what i’m accusing you of: a party that only values the oppinions and the views of the rich. A party that looks down upon honest labor that assumes that anyone that engages in honest labor is stupid, or incapable of having a worthy oppinion. It completely explains your willingness to inact laws that make it difficult for minorities and poor to vote. I mean who cares what they have to say anyway?
Your comments do not insult me. I don’t look askance on anyone, especially laborers. If you want to assume i work at Starbucks or Burger kind and look down on me for it, that says something about YOU, not me. It shows what YOU are. A party for the rich, by the rich and obsequious to the rich. Starbucks workers and Burger Flippers need not apply.
April 29th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Insipid all I really read is maybe the first and maybe the last sentence, the rest is just random letters. Honestly, if I thought it would do any good to discuss anything with you I would write something of value, but alas it doesn’t. You come on here for no real purpose that I can think of so I just make random blurbs at you. I may as well say insipid random words… I just wonder how much you will write in response? Basically all you want to do is limit people’s freedom of will and choice which is always good when you are the benefactor, but when it gets turned on you it isn’t such fun. Okay now I am going to resume my random words and insults against you.
April 29th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Good, for you, Jasin. Revel in your stupidity,it always works for you Conservabots.
April 29th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Once again you prove your stupidity. I guess the saying about two ears and one mouth doesn’t apply to fingers and eyes…
April 29th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
I’m not the one commenting on posts i haven’t read, Jasin. Nor am i the one insulting working people. That’s stupid, and that’s you.