Home > Blogs > Post Content
|
When the Republicans mandate the reading of the U.S. Constitution on Thursday, they will read it like they wrote it and own it. Progressives relish the opportunity to show how wrong they are. Professor Akhil Reed Amar: “The American revolutionaries were just that. They actually took on the world’s most powerful monarchy. They were the Liberal Democrats of their era. The people you gave you the Constitution were the Nationalists. WE call them Federalists. The ‘States Rights’ folks, the Articles of Confederation folks, those who were against the Constitution, were the anti-Federalists. They were the Conservatives. Akhil Reed Amar, American legal scholar, is an expert on constitutional law and criminal procedure. He was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Amar clerked for now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer when he was a judge on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a Legal Affairs poll placed Amar among the top 20 contemporary US legal thinkers. Amar is the author of numerous publications and books, most recently the acclaimed “America’s Constitution: A Biography.” The Supreme Court has cited his work in over 20 cases, including the landmark 1998 decision in Clinton v. City of New York, which ruled the presidential line-item veto unconstitutional.
Posted By: Richard Kigel
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 12:02PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
|
 |
Two things I REALLY like about this Rich. First, the man carries the Constitution with him at all times. We all should take that as an example of GREAT citizenship. Second, it is not HOLY writ. It can and SHOULD be amended. So let's do the RIGHT thing and amend it! And let the PROGRESSIVES we have always been take the LEAD! But in whatever form it exists, let's follow it as our current law, and not try to CIRCUMVENT it!
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 3:10PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
AMENDMENT IS WHAT MAKES IT A LIVING DOCUMENT, NOT INTERPRETATION!
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 3:12PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
The example I always use id the 2nd amendment. Though I support that amendment in the fullest possible sense, if the People do not want an armed populace, then IT CAN BE REPEALED!
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 3:15PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Careful, now--here is here the disagreements come in.
The words of the second amendment are not absolute--they are qualified.
"The right of the people to keep and bear amrs shall not be infringed..."
However, that statement is attached to its rationale: "A well regulated mlitia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."
The first clause limits the second.
There are different ways to read this--and the courts have given their interpretation.
However, if you go by the English language, what the Constitution says is that people may keep arms only in the context of a regulated military.
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 4:59PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Rich, the first clause gives the REASON for the second clause. If this is such a bad amendment, if there is no more a militia and the security of a free state is no longer necessary, REPEAL the damn thing.
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 9:05PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Rich, was 18th century English the same as today? It is not. Well regulated means well EQUIPPED.
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 9:09PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Irma, if they had police uniforms on it would actually bother me more.
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 9:12PM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
See how great a dispute we are having over a word here or there?
That's the beauty of the Constitution.
Thursday, January 6th 2011 at 11:32PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma, I had a very upsetting experience with the Modesto police a couple years ago. It was an extreme abuse of authority and it put my innocent son's life in jeopardy. And this happens all the time.
I don't have a gun in the house for self protection. But the first thing a government must do to abuse its citizens is to take away their means of defense. And that is why we were given the second amendment. There would be no U.S.A. if the citizens had not been armed.
But I actually think my other comments, not my second amendment example, are the more important ones. I will be waiting for the Democrats to show those Tea Parties a thing or two, and correct our Constitution properly, by amendment. And while they are at it they can write it in clear language so it doesn't need any interpretation, since the original authors obviously failed in that respect. Or better yet, we can scrap the whole thing and follow that highly successful Soviet form of government.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 12:05AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Irma, I am very sorry to hear that about your mother.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 12:28AM
Steve Williams
|
 |
Now this is the type of scholarship that an educated reader can enjoy.
and from a great author
thankyou Richard again
but am I the only one that seems to feel that sweet old Irma WRITES better on Richards subjects Than her OWN?
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 8:01AM
powell robert
|
|
|
Thank you Robert!
I LOVE Irma's passion, intelligence, her sense of moral justice, her indomitable spirit and her sense of humor.
Anything she writes is a blessing for me--and for all of us!!!
Irma is the Queen of BIA!!!!
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN!!!
Or, as they say in more contemporary terms: IRMA, YOU ROCK!!!!!
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 8:42AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Right.
You know that NRA talking point: "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE--PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE?"
It is blatantly absurd, a prime example of delusional thinking.
People DO, in fact, kill people. There are many ways to do this--strangulation, poison, sticks, knives and even with cars.
But the part the NRA folks leave out is the fact that people need a weapon in order to accomplish this killing.
People--with a weapon--kill people.
People--with no weapon--do not.
Simple as that.
If an angry person has no weapon, they will have to express their out of control emotions in some other way--like cussing or hollaring. But nobody gets killed.
A gun is a serious weapon--and as you pointed out, many people are killed by accident because it is such a potent killing machine.
Clearly, these machines need to be regulated because ordinary law abiding folks need to be protected from drunken, angry, emotinally disturbed and criminal people with guns.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 10:17AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Saint Jake:
EXACTLY!!!
Well said.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 10:30AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma, I understood you were talking about your birth mother, I just had never heard how you lost her. As for the police, yes we need the police, but what we need is a "well regulated" (in the modern sense) police force. And just as in Martin's day, thousands were under surveillance, now their job is quite easy, they need only monitor this open BIA forum. It's only a question what they will do with the information.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 11:17AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
Clark, the people, as you point out, have already been disarmed, and we have allowed it to happen, in fact have willingly financed it. But I still have my pitchfork.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 11:21AM
Steve Williams
|
|
|
And what makes the NRA so absurdly ridiculous is that they are reflexively against even registration of guns people legally possess. Why they object to this step is beyond me.
We require that cars be registered. We have an insurance mandate. Everyone needs a license in order to drive. But everyone is free to drive.
So how registration of handguns restricts their freedom is a mystery.
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 1:56PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
The Founding Fathers NEEDED a gun for the injuns and the slaves.
So they wrote it in the Constitution.
Not one of them had an Automobile.
On this one I like the NRA's conservative position, we citizens still got savages to worry about....
Friday, January 7th 2011 at 7:33PM
powell robert
|
 |
@Steve you are well aware of what Buddhist use for defense of self...are you telling the government to come and take away parts of people's body...oh, well the governor of Miss. has said this is legal.lol....only trying to explain why we must have laws and these laws are never going to be able to protect people...self protection is subjective, and never exact because the need to protect one's self is unknown...there is nothing taht makes me madder is to see a movie with someone running to a phone to call the police rather then running out the door...TIME WAITS FOR NO ONE...ALL I CAN SAY IS I HAVE NOT EVER KILLED ANYONE...AND LIKE YOU, DON'T FU--WITH MY CHILDREN!!! IT IS NATURAL...(SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
tHANK YOU sTEVE...but I must explain that the mother I speak of is my birth mother(the Black unwed teen who had me when she was 16.(smile)...but I am proud to say that instead of 'adoption' in my culture we call it 'extended' family...the person you so often hear me call MOM is actually my second cousin who had no children of her own..."I" BELIEVE i TURNED OUT ALRIGHT.LOL (SMILE)
ANY WAY I have come back on line to say someting to you about how you made a valid point of the Constution is living...here they are talking about how Ca. has not put anyone to death on death row for such a long time...thenit hit me that mostlikely in teh past 55-60 years the death pendlty has gone from legal to illegal and I do believe it has done so so many times theyhave changed the reason for even bothering to go before the supreme court to make it illegal once more...
this time it is going to come under "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENt" because the needle may cause teh one being put to death pain...PLEASE.LOOOOOOOOOOOL (SMILE) BUT, WE ALL HAVE RIGHTS...CUTE
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...WAS I ANGRY AT 10 YRS. OLD AT THE PERSON WHO KILLED MY MOTHER? NO, BECAUSE i KNOW HE DID NOT MEAN TO KILL HER...BUT DEAD IS DEAD AND OH,OH IS ALWAYS TOO LATE...IS MY POINT STEVE AND WHY YOU COULD NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION I ASKED OF YOU...
BUT, BECAUSE OUR FIRST NATURAL INSTINCT IS TO SURVIVE KNOWING IT IS A POLICE MAKES US MORE CONTENT...THAT IS IF WE DONT JUDGE ALL BY THE ACTIONS OF ONE...I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAY STEVE AND I DON'T BELIEVE YOU HAVE AN OUNCE OF HATE IN YOU. (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
Steve, my point is ony that all rights must be protected...some want guns in their homes, some don't...now look at when our constutition was written disputes were settled by a duel...why do you believe we don't do this today...
and as Clark said our society has changed.
I do believe that the public is safer in England and it is due to there you don't have a right to carry a gun...not to mention the public in England don't fear their police as we do...how many get killed here because a policemen thought...oh oh is always too late.
have anyone ever heard of a drive by in England...again society now to another matter about rights andpublic opinions or is it greed....
BEER AND WINE ARE ACCUTE, ADDICTIVE DRUGS...SO DEADLY AND DANGEROUS FOR THE PUBLIC UNTIL SOME RELIGIONS ARE BASED ON NOT CONSUMING THEM...MY MOTHER WAS KILLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER WHO GOT 6 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR IT...GET MY POINT?!?
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
Why is this steve these are only people iwth the rights to carry arms???????
This is why I do questions like this inthefirst place....People have the right to bare arms means what making the public at ease when here you are saying it would worry you...
we can not have it satify all there fore the need to regulate....and, this is because a police person is still someone withhuman behaviors which have small children killing each other without intent...this is why we canput parents injail for their own children killing eachother by 'accident'...it does not stop this no more tahn the death pendelty eleminate thou shall not kill in a Christian nation.
and also steve what kind of gun do you wear keep in your home...after all with a gun one should not have to worry about home invasions and a Christian nation would never go to war...just commonsense that no matter how we try to get around it or make up excuses like fear ing police...just realize the it is only human behaviors and our social order is only trying to save teh drunk driver from killing themselves and others,,,because they have no right to do this according to the laws of man and God...even with a private owned gun...
or am I wrong about the 10 Commandments...remembeer I am not a Christian and may just have it all wrong...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...@Steve, if you saw a bunch of people coming into say your home, church, bank, mall, down your street fully armed to the teeth would it bother you????
would it bother you less if they had on a police uniform...and if so then why would it bother you less if you knew, assumed them to be the police? (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
We should ask the governor of Arizona and members of all branches of our government this question...
WERE ANY OF OUR COUNTRY'S 'FOREFATHERS' B-O-R-N IN AMERICA...
that is if we are going to go by their version of our Constitution when it comes to who is , is not an America citizen?????????????? lol (smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
Blogs Home
|
|
|
