[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

These Are The Most Stolen Cars In Every US State

Earth Changes Summary - June 2025: Extreme Weather, Planetary Upheaval,

China’s Tofu-Dreg High-Speed Rail Station Ceiling Suddenly Floods, Steel Bars Snap

Russia Moves to Nationalize Country's Third Largest Gold Mining Firm

Britain must prepare for civil war | David Betz

The New MAGA Turf War Over National Intelligence

Happy fourth of july

The Empire Has Accidentally Caused The Rebirth Of Real Counterculture In The West

Workers install 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign for Florida immigration detention center

The Biggest Financial Collapse in China’s History Is Here, More Terrifying Than Evergrande!

Lightning

Cash Jordan NYC Courthouse EMPTIED... ICE Deports 'Entire Building

Trump Sparks Domestic Labor Renaissance: Native-Born Workers Surge To Record High As Foreign-Born Plunge

Mister Roberts (1965)

WE BROKE HIM!! [Early weekend BS/nonsense thread]

I'm going to send DOGE after Elon." -Trump

This is the America I grew up in. We need to bring it back

MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE

RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism

FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...

Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam

Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN

McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.

How Romans Built Domes

My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.

They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]

Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean

The Siege (1998)

Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED

Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger


(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)
Source: Ideas With Consequences
URL Source: http://ideaswithconsequenses.wordpr ... bama-in-portland-a-first-take/
Published: May 20, 2008
Author: Michael Beaton
Post Date: 2008-05-21 14:24:20 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 2491
Comments: 182

Obama In Portland. A first take.

I saw Barak Obama in Portland on Sunday. I do not normally get caught up in shouting and crowd dynamics. And this event was no exception. But I was moved. Deeply. Quietly.

I found myself about 30 yards off the main stage watching, watching closely. And listening closely to what was being said. While Obama spoke the obligatory crowd pleasing lines it was notable to me that he did not seem to be trying to whip up the crowd into emotional frenzy. In fact it seemed the opposite. A couple times the crowd wanted to get into the “Yes we Can” chant. Obama seemed to let it run its course and then proceed w/ his remarks.

Not that I have anything against the emotion that people are feeling. I tend to want what is underlying the emotional outbursts. I want there to be substance to support it. In this case I felt it was there.

Clinton, and others, have tried to cast Obama as having “just words” “he has only given a good speech”. I now understand better why they need to try and detract from the power of Obama’s oratory. It is not like so much political speech, full of vacuous thought, full of promises and non sequitur thoughts designed to appeal to a predetermined crowd. Obama actually talks in full paragraphs, with thoughts that hold together across the entire speech. It is not simply a collection of applause lines or attack lines. He actually engages the issues we are facing in a way that evinces an understanding of this simple maxim : You cannot solve a problem at the level at which the problem was created.

My first take on the speech follows.

Basic takeaway : His stump speech is smarter, more intelligent, logically cohesive, as well as inspirational and meaningfully hopeful than the best, thought out positions of the others candidates. Or any politician I am aware of for that matter. Reagan is held out as a “great communicator”. I never have understood this, never really feeling that much of what Reagan communicated was worth hearing. As a communicator I would posit Obama is orders of magnitude better than Reagan. And… he has the added benefit of actually communicating something that calls to our “better selves” while not eviscerating what it means to be an American.

It seems that Obama has the power to hold this position of transformation. I have never heard a political candidate make the case that what he is offering is not pre-molded answers but a process by which we may affect change for the better.

Now it will be up to the country to decide if we have drunk a full cup of the bitters and ready for such a change. Or if it will take another quaff, and another round of drunken stupor, for the citizenry to get it that the course America has followed for so long, (insert lots of detail here), and that has been especially manifest in the horror that has been this BushCo Administration, is fundamentally flawed and in need of deep systemic change. We have to begin to think again as citizens bound together in some essential way that is deeper than our epicurean pursuits and our silly infatuations with flawed beliefs like “we are number one” or/and “they hate us for our freedoms”.

I am hopeful, but cynical. I live a contradiction. I am aware of the basic goodness and desires of people, the American people. I am also aware of the powers and forces and individuals who lie in wait to destroy what would destroy them. And they have their hands on the levers of power, money, communications. It is amazing to me however, that even though that is so, there is still the possibility for hope, and for change - change at a deep structural level. It lets me know that as formidable as the masters of the status quo are there is something that they do not own, that is not fully under control. It is from this, whatever that is, that something deeper, more integral, more essential will, if it will, if it can, emerge.

My favorite line in the speech:

We will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus. And say no to renditions. Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America. I don’t want to just end the war. I want to end the mindset that got us into the war. I’m tired of the politics of fear that uses 9/11 as a way to scare folks rather than a way to bring us together. I don’t like it in our own party, I don’t like it in the other party.

In these two lines Obama has made the essential case: The constitution is the essense of what makes America America. Without it we become only another failed republic tending toward a new tyranny…. as we are now. And that it will take a change in our mindset in order to affect change.

He does not promise it will happen. Only, and this is key, that if we, the citizens of America will embrace the notion of citizen once again, that promise that has been America may once again emerge. Maybe even in a more transcendant incarnation.

Maybe we can retreat from empire and become less militaristic and more holistic in our foreign affairs?

Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning, and has been a profound hinderance to our ability to function at the level of our principles.

Maybe we can begin the process of being ruled by something more positive, more true, more substantial than fears. Fears stoked by demogauges who know better, and use the knowledge for their own purposes.

Maybe we can recover from this financial precipice we find ourselves perched on. But it will take a systemic transformation akin, though different, to the social contracts that came out of the Great Depression.

Maybe we can do it before we immerse ourselves in another , more horrible global Great Depression?

Or maybe not.

But these are the propositions that are before us now.

What is certain is that to continue the path currently charted will be to proceed, pell mell, to a certain destruction. It is long past the time for vacuous promises that hardly last longer than the reverberation of the sounds of the words with which they are spoken. It is time for a commitment to a thinking that is different. A thinking that is motivated for a real comprehension of what it is we face, and propelled by a profound and essential desire to live true to “the angles of our better nature.”

I know this post needs a good editing, and I will do that in subsequent posts. For now this is meant only as first thoughts on a moment that, to me, was seminal, and which seems to presage what seems to me to be a major choice point that we, as citizens of this country, have now come to.

What has happened, even over the last 8 years, has happened. Now what? There is a choice that must be made. And will be made one way or another. Even trying, again, to not choose, or make a default choice of the known; even trying to hold fast to the well worn creeds of the past - our racism, our unsubstantiated beliefs, our formidible ignorance, our memories of world dominance, our lust for war as opposed to transformation, our lazy desire to have someone else figure it all out - just dont mess w/ my football game, or whatever drug of choice used to dull us to the consequences of our national choices; still a choice will be made.

I hope we choose well. And for better reasons than we have in the past.

A link to a news report.

Excerpts from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Portland.

As a final note:

When have you ever heard a politician in recent times appeal to the constitution in such a profound way. And more, to recognize its authority. And to rever it as something to be upheld in the present tense, not as some historical but anachronistic idea.

Not since Lincoln have I heard such language from a presidential contender.

“We are now gathered to see if that nation, or any nation so constituted can long endure….”

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: aristeides (#0)

Because you will have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

Obama is going to shut down 95% of the Federal Government, abolish the Department of Education, end the "War on Drugs" and ... ?

That would be "obeying the Constitution".

McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.

mirage  posted on  2008-05-21   14:26:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: aristeides (#0)

OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)

His votes in the Senate prove he is a liar. But then he is a politician so that is not unexpected. What is unbelievable is that so many people have been taken in by this jug-eared clown.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   14:28:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: James Deffenbach (#2)

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   14:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: James Deffenbach (#2)

Does Obama's Constitution contain the 2nd Amendment? I think it is important to establish whether the Constitution he is reading is the same one we are reading.

echo5sierra  posted on  2008-05-21   14:33:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: aristeides (#3)

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

If he actually obeys that oath he is required to take and shuts down most of the federal government? Not get us involved in undeclared (and therefore illegal) wars? End the welfare state which has no constitutional authorization? Tell the people that the "income" tax has been deliberately misapplied to things which are not "income" and that they should demand an end to it? Tell people that the Federal Reserve is a criminal syndicate that should be disbanded and the gold they have stolen returned to the Treasury? Yeah sure, if he does all of that I will be one of his biggest supporters.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   14:35:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: mirage (#1)

have a president who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and who will obey the Constitution of the United States of America.

When he says he will obey he means he will {sometime in the future} obey the Constitution {maybe} as opposed to

"Because I am a presidential candidate who has taught the Constitution and believes the Constitution and obeys the Constitution of the United States of America."

Same old lawyer parsing.

"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"

angle  posted on  2008-05-21   14:38:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: echo5sierra (#4)

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

"I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" like background checks, he said during a news conference.

Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights .

You may quarrel with the extent to which he would permit regulation, but he obviously believes the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   14:40:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: James Deffenbach (#5)

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

I see. If he does those things, it won't be good enough for you. I guess you're prepared to live in a country that lacks habeas corpus.

For some of us, those changes would count for a lot.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   14:41:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: angle (#6)

To repeat:

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

And I'd say two years is a reasonable time in which to expect him to do those things. If he doesn't do it within that time frame, I'll admit I was wrong. What about you?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   14:43:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: aristeides (#0)

Maybe we can transcend the essential racism that has been in our deep psyche from the beginning

Actually I'm counting on Obama to wake up whitey. Or enough of whites, at any rate; Beaton -- how appropriate! -- looks pretty hopeless here.

Closing Guantanamo, if it happened, would be nice too, of course.

If you will go along with me we'll travel with the tide
And I will always keep you on the sheltered side

Tauzero  posted on  2008-05-21   14:46:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: angle (#6)

Same old lawyer parsing.

Yup. How can you make the Constitution say what you want it to say!

We have the document. We have an owner's guide in the form of the Federalist Papers. We have an amendment process which is how the Constitution is supposed to be "re-interpreted". It is not a living document. The only possible "re-interpretation" are decisions such as determining whether or not new technologies such as the Internet falls under the First Amendment, whether or not electronic surveillance is covered by the Fourth Amendment, and such.

That would be "obeying the Constitution". If you want a Department of Education, get an amendment that says "Congress shall facilitate the education of the people and have the power to pass the appropriate laws" or something like that.

But that isn't what will happen.

All politicians have this problem. Its not just an Obama thing.

McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.

mirage  posted on  2008-05-21   14:46:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: mirage (#11)

All politicians have this problem. Its not just an Obama thing.

It's a lawyer thing.

"HOLODOMOR" is Ukrainian word for "FAMINE-GENOCIDE"

angle  posted on  2008-05-21   14:48:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Tauzero (#10)

Closing Guantanamo, if it happened, would be nice too, of course.

A lot of people on this forum seem strangely unwilling to admit that.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   14:50:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: aristeides (#13)

A lot of people on this forum seem strangely unwilling to admit that.

Not everyone. Closing most of the "external" military bases would be an outstanding idea as well. Can we get that too as part of the package?

McCain/Obama '08 -- Because the next step is Socialism rather than Freedom.

mirage  posted on  2008-05-21   14:55:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: aristeides (#7)

Obama Supports Individual Gun Rights .

Are you aware of the fact that Obama wants a national ban on concealed carry?

Obama : National Ban on Concealed Carry for lawful owners


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   15:16:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: FormerLurker. the thread (#15)

BHO's past actions, proposals, and votes give the lie to his words in this speech, it seems to me.

Lod  posted on  2008-05-21   15:25:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: aristeides (#7)

The senator, a former constitutional law instructor, said some scholars argue the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees gun ownerships only to militias, but he believes it grants individual gun rights.

Just one more thing that proves he is full of crap. No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   15:29:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: aristeides (#8)

I see. If he does those things, it won't be good enough for you.

Why should it be enough when he has said that he understands the Constitution and would obey it? You pick out two things out of the hundreds of things the government has screwed up and trashed the Constitution and those two things are enough for you? That is pretty sad.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   15:32:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: FormerLurker (#15)

Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."

Novak's recent column on Obama's position on the Second Amendment says nothing about a stand on concealed weapons, but indicates his position on guns has evolved. Your link is about a Chicago Tribune article from 2004.

If Novak knew Obama currently wants a national ban on concealed carry, surely he would mention it.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   15:32:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: aristeides (#7) (Edited)

I know he thinks the 2A is in the constitution, but does he interpret it correctly? That is my point. We all know he doesn't, and pushes for strict gun control. In that case, it might as well not exist.

Someone else quoted him as saying he believes the Constitution grants us the individual right. He is a crappy constitutional law professor.

echo5sierra  posted on  2008-05-21   15:39:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: aristeides (#0)

Obama In Portland. A first take. (OBAMA REPEATS HE WILL CLOSE GITMO, RESTORE HABEAS, AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION)

And George Bush said he would have a humble foreign policy and not partake in nation building activites. He also swore up and down he was a conservative.

I'm sorry ari, but I do not believe Senator Obama. The Democratic Party does not have a history of following the Constitution and instead have a history of reinterpreting it to mean things it has never meant in the past. I can see no reason why they would change their ways now.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2008-05-21   15:39:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: James Deffenbach (#17)

No amendment "grants individual rights" and the founders must be spinning in their graves at such stupid stuff. They knew they weren't granting anyone any rights, just recognizing some God-given rights people had before there was such a thing as government. Obummer needs a lot more schooling.

Let's read the second amendment, shall we?

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

My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, since the founding daddies decided that not infringing on the right helps with the security of the free State, they agreed not to infringe it.

Let's see if you can follow me now. If the free State may or may not infringe on the right to bear arms, the free State is effectively granting it, through the second amendment. Because, if the free State finds that it has no need for a well regulated Militia, then the free State may decide to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms and there's nothing God can do about it other than maybe do an earthquake or send over some plague. I hope you understand now. Obama is right and you are not, which is not surprising at all, given his intellectual superiority.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   15:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: aristeides (#19)

If Novak knew Obama currently wants a national ban on concealed carry, surely he would mention it.

Perhaps he never looked into it.

In any case, actions speak louder than words, and every step of the way Obama has voted anti-gun.

In addition to wanting a national concealed carry ban, he wants to outlaw ALL semi-automatic weapons, which means just about every modern rifle or handgun, as well as some of the finer shotguns made for duck hunting.

Here's a link on that..

Barack Obama on Gun Control


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   15:44:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: aristeides (#7)

Recognize this, counselor? Do you think your hero, Obummer, would know who said it and when?

As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the declaration of independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident'-that is, so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement-'that all men are [111 U.S. 746, 757] endowed'-not by edicts of emperors, or decrees of parliament, or acts of congress, but 'by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.'-that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away, except in punishment of crime-'and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and to secure these'-not grant them, but secure them- 'governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. As it hinders the one from working at what he thinks proper, so it hinders the others from employing whom they think proper.' Smith, Wealth Nat. bk. 1, c. 10.

BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   15:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)

Read post #24. You might learn something (it is within the realm of possibility that even deluded people who support establishment scum are not beyond reach or help).

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   15:46:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#22)

My reading tells me that the 'free State' may or may not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You'd be wrong, as it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", it doesn't say shall not be infringed by Congress.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   15:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: James Deffenbach (#25)

In what way is your quotation related to the second amendment?

I explained it to you, by referring to the words in the second amendment itself that the right to keep and bear arms was tolerated because it served the interests of the State. Nothing to do with God, the pursuit of entertainment or any other freedoms. It's strictly about State security comrade. Shall I quote it to you again? Here it is:

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

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   15:51:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: FormerLurker (#26)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.

Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'

a vast rightwing conspirator  posted on  2008-05-21   15:54:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Hayek Fan (#21)

To repeat, once again:

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   15:55:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: aristeides (#29)

If he does not close the jail at Gitmo and see to it that habeas corpus is restored after he becomes president, I will admit that I was wrong.

If he does do these things, will you admit that you were wrong?

How could I not admit that I was wrong? It would be plain for everyone to see.

But to answer your question, yes. If he closes Gitmo and restores habeas corpus, then I will indeed admit that I was wrong.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Director, CIA 1973–1976

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2008-05-21   15:57:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: James Deffenbach (#18)

Why should it be enough when he has said that he understands the Constitution and would obey it

Hehehe..

Obama is a Consthitutional pro-festhor dontch'a know. You're getting pretty sneaky there lumping in understanding with obeying in the same breath. I honestly don't think he understands it, or obeys it. The best way to judge how a person will behave in the future, is to look at how they behaved in the past.

Some people will fall for anything. After W, how anyone can trust any of these candidates is beyond me.

Politicians keep throwing out the same bait... and the fish bite.

Peppa  posted on  2008-05-21   16:02:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: FormerLurker, all (#23)

More on Obama and gun control

Jethro Tull  posted on  2008-05-21   16:02:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#28)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is offered as the reason for allowing the possession of arms. There is no reference to God or inalienable rights. It's something very practical.

The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm.

The "free State" was the United States itself.

The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion.


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   16:03:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: James Deffenbach (#24)

Justice Field's concurrence in that case, apparently giving the force of law to the Declaration of Independence, is contrary to the prevailing view of the courts on that point (i.e., whether the Declaration of Independence has the force of law.) As a concurrence, it of course does not itself have the force of law.

On what the Supreme Court has held on this issue, see the article on "Declaration of Independence" in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (2nd edition 2005), pp. 255-56.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   16:07:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Hayek Fan (#30)

But to answer your question, yes. If he closes Gitmo and restores habeas corpus, then I will indeed admit that I was wrong.

Glad to hear it. I think you're the first person on this thread to answer my question in the affirmative.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

aristeides  posted on  2008-05-21   16:09:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#27) (Edited)

What is it about "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" that has you puzzled? Or is it the "shall not be infringed" that you don't quite get? If the second amendment applied only to some government sanctioned militia it would have been illegal (apparently) for the government to do a part of its function until the second amendment was ratified (which was a bit later than the adoption of the Constitution). Or is it your contention that Congress could arm the "militia" but the "militia" couldn't accept the arms until the second amendment was ratified? And who is the "militia"? At the time the Constitution was written it was every able-bodied man from 18 on up, not a government army.

Here is what the Constitution says about the powers of Congress in regard to the militia:

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;

(On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified the remaining ten amendments, and the Bill of Rights officially became part of the Constitution.)

So I guess in Obummer land the Congress could arm the militia but the militia would have had to wait a few years to accept the arms. LOL! You guys are kinda funny, or would be if lives and liberty were not at issue.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   16:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Jethro Tull (#32)

Yep, and he's against hi-cap magazines as well. I wonder if his security detail will switch to low-cap magazines, or it will it just be the law-abiding peasants that this new rule will apply to?

That's if they don't confiscate the "assault weapon" first, aka a gun that fires more than one bullet without having to reload...


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   16:10:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: FormerLurker, Hounddawg, Jethro Tull, 2A supporters, all. (#33)

The Militia as referred to by the 2nd Amendment was understood to be all free men aged 18-45. In fact, there were laws on the books that REQUIRED men of that age to acquire a firearm.

The "free State" was the United States itself.

The Founders declared the Militia as necessary for the security of the United States, and further elaborated that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Not too hard to understand, at least in my opinion.

I would like to point all to a most excellent post re: 'well regulated militia'.

Props to Dawg.

freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/re...? ArtNum=76144&Disp=53#C53


The US House subcommittee on the RTKBA (1982) was the best treatment of the subject.

They very courageously discovered and documented that there were in fact TWO militias. The militia consisted of all able bodied men between the given age range of service who were expected to provide their own weapons, ball and powder. The other was the SELECT MILITIA which were also private citizens who were supplied with weapons and ammo from the state.

Neither were to be confused with The Continental Army.

The right to keep arms for personal use was so fundamental that the founders saw no need to mention it in the BOR, any more than the right to eat or breathe air. The 2nd amendment was a guarantee that the individual colonies were not dependent upon the national government for the supply of arms to protect themselves.

Those who believe that the 2A only guarantees the govt's "right" to arm the national guard are wrong for several reasons. First, nowhere in the constitution is the word "right" used when referring to govt. Govt has powers, only people have rights. (Bush federalized the state guards with a stroke of a pen and sent them to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and no governors' objections could stop it. So, let's not waste time discussing just who is "the govt" when referring to national guard units.)

Second, to suggest that only guardsmen have a 2A right would be like this: "Because an aristocracy of achievement is necessary to the maintenance of a free state, the right to keep and read books shall not be infringed".

In other words as Thos. Jefferson wrote, "A democracy of opportunity will produce an aristocracy of achievement". Would such an amendment guaranteeing the right to read only apply to congressmen and senators, or justices of the courts? Those who suggest that only the national guard has a 2A right would have to argue for this ridiculous interpretation.

Those who suggest that the 2nd amendment is archaic and was applicable to another time fail to understand (or acknowledge) that in order to research the Miranda case the SCOTUS went back 4000 years to research the history of rights and render a decision.

The simple truth is, America is unique because the people are (supposed to be) sovereign and the govt the servants. All attempts to render the govt superior by denying arms to the people is treason. Those who argue for it are state worshipers, and the 1st amendment guarantees their right to religious freedom, but they do not have any right to impose their religion on all through the govt regulation or banning of useful arms for self defense, or to keep the govt in check.

At the time of the adoption of the constitution there were local laws that prohibited the carrying of concealed arms. The prevailing philosophy was "If a man be armed then let the world know it". Only "ne'er-do-wells" and "'scape gallows" had need to always conceal weapons, and that was to prey on the unsuspecting. And honest citizens had no reason to fear that govt would totally ban the carrying of arms, therefore there was no legit need to carry concealed, or to whip it out after too many mugs of grog and during heated political debates in barrooms!

However in today's society if a criminal wishes to disarm an honest non belligerent they only have to call 911 and dishonestly claim that someone is brandishing a weapon, and if they can describe your weapon then you're going to jail! And, if you try to walk down certain streets displaying a weapon you'll be surrounded with people who taunt you with things like, "We know why you got dat gun, honky. IT'S CAUSE YOU DONT LIKE NIGGAS, HUH?" and you may be forced to shoot your way out. Or, a robber will simply shoot you in the back of the head (the way they do armored car people transporting cash in or out of a store or bank. These guards often have a weapon in one hand and the money in the other.) In short, nothing good can come from the exposed carry of firearms in certain urban areas where police are waiting to pounce on any citizen exercising his/her right to go armed for legitimate reasons.

The 1939 Miller decision involved a sawed off shotgun, and the court ruled that the weapon had no military use and therefore was not a suitable militia weapon.

Two points: First, the courts then ruled that a weapon with no military value wasn't constitutionally protected, and today's gun banners (like Bill Clinton) argue that weapons be banned because they're military weapons and have no sporting use! So, the antis and their media friendlies cite the Miller case but are careful never to explain what it says because they want it both ways.

Second, the appellant (Miller) did not show up to argue his case before the high court. Had he done so (through counsel) he could have easily demonstrated that sawed off shotguns were used in the trenches in WW1, and their military usefulness could not be disputed. Today the federal govt has a totally arbitrary standard for legal shotguns and rifles. (18" bbls for shotguns, 16" bbls for rifles and minimum 26" overall length to be legal)

This standard makes no sense when one considers that the XM177E2 (Colt CAR 15) assault carbine that was and is so popular with armies and special forces (John Wayne carried one in The Green Berets) has a 11.5" bbl. So, if a widely used military arm is A) fully auto or select fire, and B) has a 10" bbl (without flash suppressor) and detachable extended magazine, and C) the Miller court ruled that small arms with military value are constitutionally protected and suitable for militia use, then it's a slam dunk that the federal govt has exceeded its constitutionally limited powers in the 1934 NFA and the 1968 GCA.

The strange case of United States v. Miller

HOUNDDAWG posted on 2008-03-19 2:46:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

Peppa  posted on  2008-05-21   16:11:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Peppa (#31)

Obama is a Consthitutional pro-festhor dontch'a know. You're getting pretty sneaky there lumping in understanding with obeying in the same breath. I honestly don't think he understands it, or obeys it. The best way to judge how a person will behave in the future, is to look at how they behaved in the past.

Some people will fall for anything. After W, how anyone can trust any of these candidates is beyond me.

Politicians keep throwing out the same bait... and the fish bite.

Peppa, it is really sad. With all the people coming out for Ron I had hopes that maybe some of the sheeple were stirring from their slumber and maybe gotten through a part of their state (government induced) brainwashing. It amazes me how some people can never figure out that if you keep on doing what you have always done you will keep getting what you always got. And in the case of politicians, vote for an establishment whore and see your rights violated at every turn. The Obummer people are a bit slow on the uptake it seems. And I wouldn't care but their votes for traitors effect me and mine in a negative way and I don't appreciate it.

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   16:15:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: aristeides (#34)

Justice Field's concurrence in that case, apparently giving the force of law to the Declaration of Independence, is contrary to the prevailing view of the courts on that point (i.e., whether the Declaration of Independence has the force of law.) As a concurrence, it of course does not itself have the force of law.

What part of his opinion grieved you the most? The recognition that no man granted anyone any rights? The recognition, not explicitly stated but certainly implied, that if one group of men could grant you rights by putting the right words on one piece of paper that another group of evil men could take them away by writing contrary words on another piece of paper?

Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton

James Deffenbach  posted on  2008-05-21   16:17:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Peppa (#38) (Edited)

The US House subcommittee on the RTKBA (1982) was the best treatment of the subject.

It's always amazed me that those who authored this great piece have since done an about face on the topic. Wonder what got to them, or what skeletons they have in their respective closets.

Most surprising is in seeing Sen. Edward Kennedy as one of the authors. A "conspiracy theorist" might wonder if he recently had an urge to go back to the principled man he once was, and for that, he was given a lesson he couldn't forget..


You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006

FormerLurker  posted on  2008-05-21   16:18:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (42 - 182) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]