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: 2492
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: 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. 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….”
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-78) not displayed.
.
.
.
#79. To: Elliott Jackalope (#77)
Article 1, section 8: I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You mean, we iz cuzn's?? Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Allllllllllriiiiiiiiight!! I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution". Obviously, to decide such cases, a court has to interpret the Constitution. John Marshall explains all this much better than I could in Marbury v. Madison.
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.
Given the way the courts have interpreted the Commerce Clause, socialized medicine would clearly be constitutional. You guys obviously interpret the Constitution very differently from the way the courts do. But why don't you give that disagreement a rest for a while? The Bush regime is presently threatening rights that virtually all lawyers would agree are constitutionally guaranteed. Why don't you ally yourselves with us lawyers until we and you can get those rights back? Once that is done, then you can resume your disagreements with the lawyers and the courts.
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.
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. That awesome quote is enough to Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. P.T. Barnum had folks like you in mind when he said there was a sucker born every minute. And Obummer is so proud of you dupes too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get
through the day :P
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing. Why is that, do you suppose?
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.
October 3, 2000 The First Gore-Bush Presidential Debate Excerpt: BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well- equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute. GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there. BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions, whether it's Milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area? GORE: Well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as I did. But I went anyway because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place. I served for eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control. I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years I've served on the National Security Council, and when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started. My uncle was a victim of poisonous gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. We have to be willing to make good, sound judgments. Incidentally, I know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology. The governor has proposed skipping the next generation of weapons. I think that's a big mistake, because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge. MODERATOR: Governor, how would you advise the voters to make the decision on this issue? BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there's one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to -- because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who's shown the ability to get things done? GORE: If I could say one thing. MODERATOR: We are way over three-and-a-half minutes. Go ahead. GORE: One of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to establish the old-fashioned principle that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. When I was in the United States Congress, I worked with former President Reagan. When I was in the United States Senate I worked with former President Bush, your father. I was one of only a few Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf War. I think bipartisanship is a national asset. We have to find ways to reestablish it in foreign policy and national security policy. MODERATOR: Do you have a problem with that? BUSH: Yeah. Why haven't they done it in seven years? MODERATOR: New subject. New question. Should the voters of this election, Vice President Gore, see this in the domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies? GORE: Oh, absolutely. This is a very important moment in the history of our country. Look, we've got the biggest surpluses in all of American history. The key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn't go just to the few. Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush's plan, go to the wealthiest 1%. I think we have to make the right and responsible choices. I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors, not just to the poor, under Medicare, not relying on HMOs and insurance companies. I think that we have to help parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are just heart sick that their children are exposed to. I think we've got to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. I think that we have got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt will be completely eliminated by the year 2012. I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. I don't think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. I think it needs to be moved out of the budget and protected. I'll veto anything that takes money out of Social Security or Medicare for anything other than Social Security or Medicare. Now, the priorities are just very different. I'll give you a couple of examples. For every new dollar that I propose for spending on health care, Governor Bush spends $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Those are very clear differences. MODERATOR: Governor, one minute.
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours. For someone who claims to believe in the Constitution, you seem strangely eager to deprive some people of their constitutional rights. Habeas corpus, by the way, need not mean release. The government has the right to bring the people to trial. If it can prove guilt, the party is not released. And, if it's not able to prove guilt, then, for all we know, they're innocent. Especially when it's the Bush regime that is doing the charging. You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
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.
Whether you believe in God or not, do you or do you not believe in an inherent right to defend your life and your property? Yes or no? Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right. Do you want me to quote it again? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State is the reason stated in the bill of rights. As for what I believe? I believe that you TAKE your rights. No one gives them to you, not even God. And you get to keep them for as long as you exercise them and for as long as you defend them.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
My rights are threatened daily by both govt. and geeks who claim I'm sitting in a tree with a scoped out rifle. So, eff the magic carpet riders at Gitmo. Once gas hit $4 a gallon, I lost my compassion. As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
So why should anyone else care what you say, then, if all you care about is yourself?
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.
Wrong. The state cannot "grant" a right, a right is self-evident and inheritent for all men (and women). You can call it "God given", "a natural right", or whatever terminology you wish, but it is not granted by other men. Fine. Please interpret 'A' for me. A - A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, B - the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Why didn't the text of the second amendment begin with 'B'? The second amendment could have been formulated thusly: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. But it is not. Why not? Remember, we are discussing the second amendment. Not the first. Not the declaration of independence.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Please respond to #99. It's not so hard.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
With the current state of the economy, each and every one of us is going to become a hedonist in time. This notion of a United States died years ago. I'm beyond being insulted by anything this government does, or by the lies our politicians use to gin up faux patriotism.
Do you really think everyone in Depression America was a hedonist?
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.
you guys? who is you guys?
They didn't say the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms shall be given due to any sort of specific reason, they said the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT, and they are declaring that it SHALL not be infringed. They do not attempt to state that the only reason this RIGHT will not be infringed is due to the convenience of the state, but they do describe the necessity of a militia, in that the militia is necessary for the security of a free state (as in a body of the people).
iow, don't read their lips. just curious, when's the last time a presidential candidate made a promise and kept it?
Me too, I noticed that some use 'we' and 'they' in their posts. I happen to believe that we (this one is the generic 'we', not the 'we' that is used to imply that the writer speaks for or is in agreement with many others) should all speak for ourselves, unless we receive some delegation from others to speak for them. Those who use 'we' are probably not secure enough to take responsibility for their views. As far as 'they' or 'them', it's probably not right unless it is clear that it is in reference to those who were part of a specific discussion on one side or the other.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Why is that, do you suppose? The promises of a politician mean that much to you? How old are you and what color is the sky on your home planet? There is far, far more that needs to be done to restore the Constitution than the little bit your hero is talking about. But of course that moron wants to ban so-called "assault weapons" which aren't even really assault weapons so that alone disqualifies him. And I wouldn't trust McCain and any of his promises either if he made any. He is a Manchurian candidate as far as I am concerned (no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Do you think Obama would pursue or allow a neutral investigation into 9/11? I believe his masters are the same people that Bush and Cheney report to, after a layer or two of intermediaries perhaps.
You know what they say about great minds... :)
No, they do NOT talk about self-defense. They talk about the security of the State. Do you want me to quote it again? Here it is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
I reckon it is still alright to be white, ain't it? I mean the obummer people ain't campaigning to make that a crime yet, are they? If they are I ain't heard 'bout it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Got any direct quotes from ANY of the founders who said they were "granting" anyone any rights? No? I didn't think so. Here is a picture of your hero I thought you might like. Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement. The security of the STATE is not a RIGHT, it is a NECESSITY if that STATE is to function and if it is to remain FREE.
Isn't it obvious? Anyone who isn't a government-worshipping Obama supporter.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Seems I have heard something about that. >(;^[}
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You would talk about anything BUT the second amendment that you are supposed to be discussing. You either lack elementary reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. Which one is it? Possibly both? The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period. 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. That's all there is. It doesn't matter what the founding grand mothers or uncles must have said before or after. The language is clear enough not to leave the possibility of a 'God penumbra' or of a 'self defense penumbra'. It is clear that the protection of the right to bear arms in the second amendment is narrow and conditional. I understand that not everyone likes this. I am one of them but I'm not one of those who believe that the constitution and its protections are worth much to begin with.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Indeed. And the 'well regulated Militia' means...? Who does the regulation? Could it be... the State? Yes, the right exists in the universe of Platonic concepts but the second amendment implies that the state may or may not protect it. If the state decides not to protect it, then the right goes away. The implication is that the State was better off with this right protected or granted. The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights. If the right to bear arms was universal and unconditional, the second amendment would have read: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Again, a right can not be GRANTED by the government, it already exists. As you touch upon, the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS this RIGHT, but the RIGHT is not limited to the purpose of protecting the "free state", but exists by itself on its own. The protection of this right is not dependent upon the existence of a militia, nor the necessity of the free state, as the sentence ends with "shall not be infringed". It doesn't end with "shall not be infringed in regards to the security of the state".
So the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to list what was good for the state, and not necessarily for the people?
Comments (120 - 182) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
#80. To: Peppa (#75)
Hillbillies understand it. I guess some lawyers need help.
Lord Acton
#81. To: James Deffenbach (#80)
How did you'ns know I wuz a hillbilly? ahaha.
#82. To: Peppa (#81)
Shooooot.. I better put on a cake. :)
Lord Acton
#83. To: James Deffenbach (#82)
Yep, daz rat! We iz cuzzin's and I have a powerful hankerin' for some good cake.
#84. To: Peppa (#83)
I better make a ham just in case. ;)
Lord Acton
#85. To: James Deffenbach (#84)
Now you're talkin'! Your cuz likes ham mighty fine. And sum of them thar homemade rolls and a apple pie wouldn't go amiss neither. ahaha.
#86. To: Critter (#78)
#87. To: Critter (#76)
(Edited)
How can you obey the Constitution and be in favor of socialized medicine for starters?
#88. To: aristeides, Jethro Tull, christine (#0)
(Edited)
My favorite line in the speech:
get keep my vote. Viva Obama!
#89. To: Peppa (#85)
Cake and pie? I kin tell right now, you from mom's side. LOL!
Lord Acton
#90. To: Arator (#88)
That awesome quote is enough to get my vote. Viva Obama!
Lord Acton
#91. To: Arator (#88)
#92. To: James Deffenbach (#90)
#93. To: Jethro Tull, christine (#88)
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000a.html
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#94. To: James Deffenbach (#89)
Well yeah, you got to have apple pie with ham. It's agin the way not to have it together! And you don't want to do stuff agin the way, do you?
#95. To: Jethro Tull (#91)
(Edited)
How does releasing muzzies back to the caves they came from help me get through the day?
#96. To: James Deffenbach (#56)
My friend, I am not baffled. I am only reading the second amendment. You read it and you tell me if you see any reference to God in there.
#97. To: aristeides (#95)
Where anyone's rights are threatened, so in the end are yours.
#98. To: Jethro Tull (#97)
As a complete hedonist, they can go stroke camels for all I care.
#99. To: FormerLurker (#57)
The right to arms is granted by the State because it benefits the State.
#100. To: Hayek Fan (#65)
What you are doing is interpreting the words the way you want them to read.
#101. To: aristeides (#98)
(Edited)
#102. To: Jethro Tull (#101)
#103. To: aristeides (#95)
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
#104. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted because it benefited the security of the state, not because it was a God-given right.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#105. To: Peppa (#93)
And days after taking office, war plans were on the desk.
#106. To: christine (#103)
#107. To: aristeides (#92)
While Obama is promising to restore habeas corpus, McCain is promising no such thing.
Lord Acton
#108. To: aristeides (#95)
You guys are increasingly acting as if you believe the government's 9/11 story.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#109. To: James Deffenbach (#107)
(no better or worse than Obama or Clinton, they are all owned by the same folks and will take their orders from them just like Bill Clinton did and just like both Bush's have)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#110. To: FormerLurker (#104)
They acknowledge that self-defense (by extension the keeping and bearing of arms) is a RIGHT,
#111. To: Peppa (#94)
Well, you gots a point. Long as you got good coloresterall...;)
Lord Acton
#112. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#96)
Again, and again, and again. This discussion is about the second amendment. Those who wrote the second amendment, NOT ME, stated that the right to bear arms was granted...
Lord Acton
#113. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#110)
No word about self defense. It's the defense of the free State that justifies the granting of the right to bear arms.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#114. To: christine (#103)
you guys? who is you guys?
Lord Acton
#115. To: FormerLurker (#109)
You know what they say about great minds... :)
Lord Acton
#116. To: James Deffenbach (#112)
#117. To: FormerLurker (#113)
They are talking about the security of a free body of people. They further state in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They do not say they are giving this RIGHT, they say that RIGHT will not be INFRINGED upon. It is a rather profound and concise statement.
#118. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#116)
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms because armed people can help defend the state. Period.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#119. To: a vast rightwing conspirator (#117)
The implication is that the State might have decided not to protect or grant the right to bear arms but, since it was good for the state, the second amendment was included into the bill of rights.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
.
.
.