Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[REDSTATEWARD]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

[barton]

Whatever climate change is doing to marine life, it's nice to see the sea lion population is holding steady here.

Perhaps we can revive all the Americans dead from shootings and get their input on why our Constitution is better than Japan's.  Hint:  the NRA gave it a nice makeover....

"A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree....   

https://www.brennancenter.org//analysis/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInNLzv6q25AIVy8DACh2kEAZ9EAAYASAAEgLHV_D_BwE

[josh]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Duh.

But there was no requirement for which items had to be passed for that condition to be met, no matter how you bluster. Different states had included their recommendations for Amendments, but none of the ratifications was contingent upon their proposed amendmment's passage. Hence, Amendments A - D were all rejected by Congress without any state's undoing its ratification.

Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut ratified it in the first few months. Massachusetts finally ratified it by a close margin, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. New Hampshire sealed the deal.

New York's ratification, one of the strongest of the pushes for a Bill of Rights, came after 10 other states (Virginia was 10th) had already ratified the Constitution. New Hampshire's vote put the country under the new instrument.

The Bill of Rights came because it was desired, but the 2nd (successful) Amendment was not "key" for the Constitution to get ratified.

Evidence to the contrary is welcome. Knock yourself out, Ward.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/09/03/nc-gerrymandering-case-north-carolina-redistricting-maps-supreme-court/2202734001/

[josh]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

It's a fine claim, Ward, with zero evidence. Back to usual.

But even if we were to accept that at face value, which we don't, it still isn't evidence that the 8th proposed amendment, 4th amendment passed by Congress, and 2nd Amendment ratified by the states was "key" to the ratification of the Constitution.

It isn't even a suggestion of a connection!

But you are simply wrong. The first 6 states to ratify didn't give a damn about the Bill of Rights. (PA had folks who cared and tried to block a vote, but their only way to do that was to block quorum - they were not substantial enough in number to block it should it come to a vote - and their attendance was forced upon them and they were locked in.)

Massachusetts cared. But when John Hancock shifted his position from anti- constitution to pro-constitution, that ended that. Why did Hancock shift? Because he was promised that certain amendments protecting individual rights were going to be considered by the first new Congress.

Key word? CONSIDERED. Not accepted. Considered.

New York created a long list of assumptions and with it recommended amendments, by far the largest of the lists of recommendations. It was quite something, Ward.

Oddly enough, not only were most of those recommendations not among those passed by Congress, let alone ratified by the states, but your pet Amendment, while mentioned under assumptions, did not make the cut for recommended amendments!

[josh]

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2019/09/03/nc-gerrymandering-case-north-carolina-redistricting-maps-supreme-court/2202734001/

Wow!!

The judges also imposed rules on a new round of redistricting. The new mapmaking must start from scratch, all map-drawing must occur at public hearings with computer screens visible to everyone and any consultants hired by lawmakers must be approved by the court.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

It's a fine claim, Ward, with zero evidence.

Other than the fact it is true.
Which you admitted.

[josh]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

It's a fine claim, Ward, with zero evidence.

Other than the fact it is true.
Which you admitted.

Now you're just making up shit.

I admitted nothing that substantiates your original position, which was that the 2nd Amendment was "key" to the ratification of the US Constitution.

And I admitted nothing that substantiates your attempt to retrench, which was that the Bill of Rights "there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789."

Skipping the fact that your claim here made no sense:

The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

I said:
"submitted at the 1st Congressional session"

I said:
"might have refused"

I said:
"certain amendments protecting individual rights were going to be considered by the first new Congress."

You?

You translated those into "Which you admitted."

Your ability to lie, deny, and obfuscate remains unparalleled among our membership, Ward, but...

even with your bogus claim about the Bill having been required to retroactively have the Constitution ratified (soundly disproven by the Massachusetts explanation), you have still failed to support your initial claim about the 2nd Amendment, even in the slightest.

[Hairy Lime]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

It's a fine claim, Ward, with zero evidence.

Other than the fact it is true.
Which you admitted.

Now you're just making up shit.

I admitted nothing that substantiates your original position, which was that the 2nd Amendment was "key" to the ratification of the US Constitution.

And I admitted nothing that substantiates your attempt to retrench, which was that the Bill of Rights "there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789."

Skipping the fact that your claim here made no sense:

The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

I said:
"submitted at the 1st Congressional session"

I said:
"might have refused"

I said:
"certain amendments protecting individual rights were going to be considered by the first new Congress."

You?

You translated those into "Which you admitted."

Your ability to lie, deny, and obfuscate remains unparalleled among our membership, Ward, but...

even with your bogus claim about the Bill having been required to retroactively have the Constitution ratified (soundly disproven by the Massachusetts explanation), you have still failed to support your initial claim about the 2nd Amendment, even in the slightest.

None of which is relevant to Red's idiotic statement that the SCOTUS upheld the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

[josh]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The 2nd Amendment (which was the 4th one put up, not the 2nd) was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, along with 11 others. It was not ratified until Dec. 15, 1791, nearly 3 and a half years after the Constitution.

No, the subsequently enumerated 2nd Amendment was not key to the ratification of the Constitution.

Please explain why there is a Bill of Rights.

A Bill of Rights was required to be submitted at the 1st Congressional session, Ward, or a few of the states might have refused to ratify the Constitution. Might!

Without the Bill of Rights there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789.

It's a fine claim, Ward, with zero evidence.

Other than the fact it is true.
Which you admitted.

Now you're just making up shit.

I admitted nothing that substantiates your original position, which was that the 2nd Amendment was "key" to the ratification of the US Constitution.

And I admitted nothing that substantiates your attempt to retrench, which was that the Bill of Rights "there would be NO Constitution as written by 1789."

Skipping the fact that your claim here made no sense:

The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

I said:
"submitted at the 1st Congressional session"

I said:
"might have refused"

I said:
"certain amendments protecting individual rights were going to be considered by the first new Congress."

You?

You translated those into "Which you admitted."

Your ability to lie, deny, and obfuscate remains unparalleled among our membership, Ward, but...

even with your bogus claim about the Bill having been required to retroactively have the Constitution ratified (soundly disproven by the Massachusetts explanation), you have still failed to support your initial claim about the 2nd Amendment, even in the slightest.

None of which is relevant to Red's idiotic statement that the SCOTUS upheld the ratification of the 2nd Amendment.

Let alone his claim that SCOTUS upheld the ratification of the Constitution!

[josh]

[josh]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mitch-mcconnell-whines-about-moscow-mitch-nickname-its-over-the-top?source=cheats&via=rss&fbclid=IwAR0TTLOKLOWZFTjdp2H1VPpSrSq2Y7q9FcGSxskOCJvVW0oAegqGCTRqC_Q

Aww, poor widdle Moscow Mitch...

[bambu.]

Uh, no.
The ratification of the Constitution( of which the 2nd Amendment was a key) was upheld by SCOTUS in the cases I cited.

The US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

The First Fleet from Britain arrived in Botany Bay in January 1788.
Didn't like it there, so rowed north and found Sydney harbour and much better land.
Raised the Union Jack flag there on 26th January 1788 and claimed the country for Britain.
...26th January now 'Australia Day'. [Some Aboriginal People call it "Invasion Day".]

1. Federation Day - 1 January. In 1901, the six British self-governing colonies - Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, and Western Australia - united to form the Commonweath of Australia

US is more experienced in the political game.

[bodiddley]

Lose one continent-sized colony, gain another.
Just another Day in the Empire ...

If people don't mind, I was wondering who folks here favored in the Dem primary (thus far) and maybe some reasons for that support.
I'm not looking to counter or persuade anyone.
Just i'm overseas and don't know well the support and reasons.

I've been very impressed by Liz Warren (really for years now, but I wasn't sure how she'd do campaigning for Prez).  It just struck me that in some ways she's running something of an AlGore campaign, providing solutions for large problems.  Maybe the difference is that now people acknowledge there are large problems.  While Gore was going for a 3rd Clinton term, which is often tough.  And Gore got bad media (for some reason) while Warren gets good coverage.  Anyway, i think Liz is smart, dynamic and will take on big business.

Lastly, no matter who wins, the Dems must remind folks of the Bush disaster and the Trump incompetency.  Amazing, how the Dem just forgot about Bush instead of riding against him and the GOP for decades.  But also connect the two.  Trump just enacted Trillion Dollar tax cuts for the wealthy, just as Bush uselessly did.  jacking up huge deficits to make the wealthy wealthier and the country poorer.  And both tried to threaten social programs, Bush by trying to "privatize" Social Security out of existence, Trump trying to end Obamacare and remove health insurance from tens of millions.  Both interested in cutting back Medicare.
Gotta expose the GOP for what they are.