Bearing Arms

[indago]

From The Associated Press 4 May 2016:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Michigan State basketball player Keith Appling was charged Wednesday with carrying a concealed weapon and other crimes after being found in possession of guns and marijuana in suburban Detroit...
-----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKO_WEAPONS_CHARGES_APPLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-04-20-06-26)


Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Article 1 Sec 6 - Michigan Constitution

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car.

[Gunny]

From The Associated Press 4 May 2016:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Michigan State basketball player Keith Appling was charged Wednesday with carrying a concealed weapon and other crimes after being found in possession of guns and marijuana in suburban Detroit...
-----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKO_WEAPONS_CHARGES_APPLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-04-20-06-26)


Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Article 1 Sec 6 - Michigan Constitution

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car.

Damn. I actually agree with you about something. Someone bring the oxygen! :laugh:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

From The Associated Press 4 May 2016:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Michigan State basketball player Keith Appling was charged Wednesday with carrying a concealed weapon and other crimes after being found in possession of guns and marijuana in suburban Detroit...
-----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKO_WEAPONS_CHARGES_APPLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-04-20-06-26)


Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Article 1 Sec 6 - Michigan Constitution

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car.

The right to defend yourself is fundamental to having any freedom at all.
THUS ONE MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE WEAPONS TO DO SO.
AN UNARMED MAN IS A SLAVE TO ANY OTHER PERSON WITH A GUN ON HIM.
At least when armed, he has a chance before being enslaved.
Note: that enslavement can just as easily come from government(and most often does)!!!--Tyr

[indago]

Journalist Maura Dolan wrote for The Los Angeles Times 16 May 2016:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court decided Monday that a zoning requirement restricting the location of gun stores may violate a constitutional right to bear arms. ...“The right to purchase and to sell firearms is part and parcel of the historically recognized right to keep and to bear arms,” wrote Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-87216752/)

[fj1200]

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Article 1 Sec 6 - Michigan Constitution

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car.

The Federal supersedes the State.

[indago]

The Federal supersedes the State.

What "Federal"?

[fj1200]

What "Federal"?

Constitution, Laws, Regulations...

[indago]

Constitution, Laws, Regulations...

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the federales to have these weapons in his car.

[fj1200]

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the federales to have these weapons in his car.

Your premise is incorrect:


Article VI (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html), Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause


This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[indago]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clause

So?




.

[Elessar]

I am thinking there is more to it than what the original article showed.

That may come out in the hearing.

[fj1200]

So?

You do tend to curl up in a ball and pout when challenged. :)

[indago]

You do tend to curl up in a ball and pout when challenged. :)

I don't feel "challenged"...

[gabosaurus]

Are you guys saying that the right to bear arms can not be denied to convicted criminals and those found to be mentally insane?

[indago]

Are you guys saying that the right to bear arms can not be denied to convicted criminals and those found to be mentally insane?

Infringe — to infringe is to encroach on a right or privilege or to violate

Society has place limits upon "convicted criminals and those found to be mentally insane".

How would you interpret "shall not be infringed"?

[fj1200]

I don't feel "challenged"...

Apparently you don't understand the supremacy clause then. :)

[Elessar]

Are you guys saying that the right to bear arms can not be denied to convicted criminals and those found to be mentally insane?

I would not say that. I fully agree with that notion.
Criminals is easy. The Federal Definition of a convicted felon is 1 year and 1 day
incarceration. State definitions 'might' vary. It could be a misdemeanor that
prohibits possession of fire arms.

The mentally insane can be a tough nut to crack. For one, the individual has to
have been adjudicated as such. If it does not involve action through a court, the
difficulty is trying to break the privacy codes of patient and doctor.

However, those on record of the above can easily identified through background
investigations and the NCIC.

Since you are in the mental health field, Gabby...you know what I mean, I think.

[indago]

Apparently you don't understand the supremacy clause then. :)

Then, how would you interpret "shall not be infringed"?

[Gunny]

Apparently you don't understand the supremacy clause then. :)

Now I'm going to have to defend Indago's argument. *choke cough sputter*

So the supremacy clause says you can cherrypick who is and is not guilty and what Rights you can take away? Once your debt is paid to society it's supposed to be paid. WITHOUT conditions.

[gabosaurus]

The second amendment is due for a good legal challenge or two. But that can wait until the SCOTUS has a more liberal edge to it.

Otherwise, I totally believe in the right to bare arms. Particularly during the summer. :cool:

[Kathianne]

Now I'm going to have to defend Indago's argument. *choke cough sputter*

So the supremacy clause says you can cherrypick who is and is not guilty and what Rights you can take away? Once your debt is paid to society it's supposed to be paid. WITHOUT conditions.

Actually when it comes to voting disenfranchisement, that is up to the states, according to the constitution. It's the states that decide who may and may not vote. I'm pretty sure that would be the case with guns too?

[aboutime]

Now I'm going to have to defend Indago's argument. *choke cough sputter*

So the supremacy clause says you can cherrypick who is and is not guilty and what Rights you can take away? Once your debt is paid to society it's supposed to be paid. WITHOUT conditions.


Let's clear this up, here and now. The SUPREMACY Clause of the U.S. Constitution is simple, even for those who believe they are smarter than everyone else.

In other words. The U.S. Constitution/Supremacy Clause MUST be the final source of any, and all decisions. Making the U.S. Constitution...SUPREME over all of the State Constitutions when any ambiguity or legal questions are uncertain for citizens.

There is NO CHERRY PICKING involved IF, and WHEN following the Laws, and Constitution of the U.S.


Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

See Preemption;constitutional clauses.

[Gunny]

Actually when it comes to voting disenfranchisement, that is up to the states, according to the constitution. It's the states that decide who may and may not vote. I'm pretty sure that would be the case with guns too?

On the same page. Except gun ownership while controlled by the states is regulated by Federal Authority.

[indago]

The second amendment is due for a good legal challenge or two. But that can wait until the SCOTUS has a more liberal edge to it.

Otherwise, I totally believe in the right to bare arms. Particularly during the summer. :cool:

With or without sunscreen?

[Elessar]

Actually when it comes to voting disenfranchisement, that is up to the states, according to the constitution. It's the states that decide who may and may not vote. I'm pretty sure that would be the case with guns too?

It is tough to over-ride what is already Federal Law. That differs some from 10th Amend.
clauses in regard to firearms.

ATF course I took for MLE spelled it out succinctly. State does NOT over-ride Federal!

Voting is an entirely different topic. Much of that is given to the States, although
I feel they all should be identified LEGALLY nationwide.

[Elessar]

Let's clear this up, here and now. The SUPREMACY Clause of the U.S. Constitution is simple, even for those who believe they are smarter than everyone else.

In other words. The U.S. Constitution/Supremacy Clause MUST be the final source of any, and all decisions. Making the U.S. Constitution...SUPREME over all of the State Constitutions when any ambiguity or legal questions are uncertain for citizens.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

See Preemption;constitutional clauses.


I'm no 'Sea Lawyer" but I think you nailed it!

[indago]

Now I'm going to have to defend Indago's argument. *choke cough sputter*

So the supremacy clause says you can cherrypick who is and is not guilty and what Rights you can take away? Once your debt is paid to society it's supposed to be paid. WITHOUT conditions.

Reminds me of the case of Steven Paul Gomez (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?48631-Vigilance&p=727772#post727772)

Even ex-felons have the right to defend themselves




.

[Gunny]

It is tough to over-ride what is already Federal Law. That differs some from 10th Amend.
clauses in regard to firearms.

ATF course I took for MLE spelled it out succinctly. State does NOT over-ride Federal!

Voting is an entirely different topic. Much of that is given to the States, although
I feel they all should be identified LEGALLY nationwide.

What is the basis of the 1968 Gun Rights Act? RFK got shot. By who? A Syrian. It was an overreaction to a simple incident.

If I want to buy a gun legally I have t go fill out a form, go through whatever that particular state's waiting period is, then pay a fortune. But Joe Blow the Dope Dealer can go get one for $100 down the street.

I'll also point out that Federal authority in this country is a joke. They get all worked up over isolated incidences yet can't do their own job. They don't enforce our borders and don't enforce their own drug laws in states that just said :monk::badsnort:

Maybe they ought to spend a bit more time doing their jobs instead of infinging on my Constitutional Rights?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm no 'Sea Lawyer" but I think you nailed it!

The Supremacy clause can not be a panacea to the issue of states rights vs. Federal government--
as is exampled when the Federals act unconstitutionally against any individual states by clearly overriding state laws that are entirely constitutional.
Such a powerful override with absolute power over states was one of the very things the founders feared and tried to avoid when framing the Constitution!
As has been proven many times over withe obama's abuse and illegal actions IMHO.--- TYR

What is that delicate balance?????
Certainly can not be with a Supremacy Clause that gives the FEDS absolute power by invoking the Clause every time they want to abuse a state...
Fed governments come in relation to elections and go but the states remain a constant.

All power not expressly given to the Federal remain in the hands of the people by way of the state and local governments.

We once fought a war over states rights--Civil War.

[fj1200]

Then, how would you interpret "shall not be infringed"?

Are you now acknowledging that the MI Constitution is not the final arbiter you were making it out to be? As to your question we have reams of laws, case laws, decisions, etc. that have already interpreted "shall not be infringed." Some I might like, some I might not.


Now I'm going to have to defend Indago's argument. *choke cough sputter*

So the supremacy clause says you can cherrypick who is and is not guilty and what Rights you can take away? Once your debt is paid to society it's supposed to be paid. WITHOUT conditions.

No. The supremacy clause says that Federal laws and the Constitution are supreme to state laws... but you knew that you sly dog. And as far as you agreeing with Indago... Are you sure???


On the same page. Except gun ownership while controlled by the states is regulated by Federal Authority.

Which was my point. :poke:


The Supremacy clause can not be a panacea to the issue of states rights vs. Federal government--
as is exampled when the Federals act unconstitutionally against any individual states by clearly overriding state laws that are entirely constitutional.
Such a powerful override with absolute power over states was one of the very things the founders feared and tried to avoid when framing the Constitution!
As has been proven many times over withe obama's abuse and illegal actions IMHO.--- TYR

What is that delicate balance?????
Certainly can not be with a Supremacy Clause that gives the FEDS absolute power by invoking the Clause every time they want to abuse a state...
Fed governments come in relation to elections and go but the states remain a constant.

All power not expressly given to the Federal remain in the hands of the people by way of the state and local governments.

We once fought a war over states rights--Civil War.

Fallacy. Your opinion of Constitutional is not relevant to the point. And the states are not powerless in their existence.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

From The Associated Press 4 May 2016:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Former Michigan State basketball player Keith Appling was charged Wednesday with carrying a concealed weapon and other crimes after being found in possession of guns and marijuana in suburban Detroit...
-----------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BKO_WEAPONS_CHARGES_APPLING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-05-04-20-06-26)


Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. — Article 1 Sec 6 - Michigan Constitution

There's nothing there that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car.

Correct.

One thing that has always struck me about state constitutions is that the pre-existing nature of the right being recognized is without question. That the rights of the citizen are called out first (Article I) and expressly excepted out of the powers later conferred, shows that "rights" are interests never placed into the care or control of state government.

Of course that rights are retained by the people and not granted to us by government is a maxim that's just about extinguished nowadays. Our elected leaders long ago lost any allegiance to those principles and the citizenry has abdicated their duty to be vigilant for such usurpation and theft of liberty.

So, while an express right was recognized for Michigan citizens to keep and bear arms for their personal defense (before a single power of government was set-out) and not a single express power was granted to the state or local government to have any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen, the state has written hundreds of pages of laws and invented licensing schemes to restrict this right of citizens to their private arms, kept and borne for self defense.

.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

The Federal supersedes the State.

When there is conflict or duplication of effect.

In this case there is no federal interest, the charges are state charges filed by a county prosecutor.

The subject of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state domain in law.

Some federal courts have taken an interest in state discretionary (discriminatory) permitting schemes. The 9th Circuit for instance has directed jurisdictions in California to halt discretionary permitting practices (May Issue) and ruled that some system must be in place for the citizen to be armed in public for defense, either open carry with or without permit or concealed carry with permit.

This limb of 2nd Amendment law is in its infancy and a state like California is a great test bed since it has no right to arms provision in its state constitution.

[Atticus Finch]

When there is conflict or duplication of effect.

In this case there is no federal interest, the charges are state charges filed by a county prosecutor.

The subject of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state domain in law.

Some federal courts have taken an interest in state discretionary (discriminatory) permitting schemes. The 9th Circuit for instance has directed jurisdictions in California to halt discretionary permitting practices (May Issue) and ruled that some system must be in place for the citizen to be armed in public for defense, either open carry with or without permit or concealed carry with permit.

This limb of 2nd Amendment law is in its infancy and a state like California is a great test bed since it has no right to arms provision in its state constitution.A good example of that is my state of WV has an open conceal/carry law that went into effect yesterday.No permits are necessary.Adults from 18 to 20 have to take a safety course.I'm all for the 2nd but I think the sudden appearance of guns will be a little unnerving for some.But,then again, in a rural state like WV the law probably didn't change things a whole lot...:laugh:

[fj1200]

When there is conflict or duplication of effect.

In this case there is no federal interest, the charges are state charges filed by a county prosecutor.

The subject of the rules for the carriage of arms has always been a state domain in law.

Some federal courts have taken an interest in state discretionary (discriminatory) permitting schemes. The 9th Circuit for instance has directed jurisdictions in California to halt discretionary permitting practices (May Issue) and ruled that some system must be in place for the citizen to be armed in public for defense, either open carry with or without permit or concealed carry with permit.

This limb of 2nd Amendment law is in its infancy and a state like California is a great test bed since it has no right to arms provision in its state constitution.

You're reading to much into my post. The MI constitution is good as far as it goes but it is clearly inferior to the supreme.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

A good example of that is my state of WV has an open conceal/carry law that went into effect yesterday.No permits are necessary.Adults from 18 to 20 have to take a safety course.

I saw that news, kudos to your state legislature and Governor.


I'm all for the 2nd but I think the sudden appearance of guns will be a little unnerving for some.

Perhaps but I don't have much sympathy for people who get upset when they encounter people simply exercising their rights. It isn't as if WV is the test bed for permitless carry, seven other states have led the way.

And to the point of my earlier post, WV's new carry law has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. There is no federal issue or interest in the law; it is entirely an operation of the state legislature and governor exercising their powers as conferred by the state constitution, recognizing and securing the rights of WV citizens in WV law.

Another direction to look at this --federal vs state-- issue is that West Virginia is a great example of a strong state response to oppositional federal constitutional interpretation (e.g., "the 2nd only protects a collective right") and the storm of federal gun control proposals of that time . . . WV is among a half-dozen states who in the 1980's either enacted a RKBA provision in their state constitutions if they had none or reworded an existing provision to expressly recognize and secure an individual right to arms and in some, specifically to protect armed self-defense.

These actions were undertaken by these states to protect their citizens from interpretations of the 2nd Amendment which were, at that point in time, the prevailing "supreme law" and the rights restricting laws being proposed that were supposedly constitutionally legitimate under that "supreme law".



But,then again, in a rural state like WV the law probably didn't change things a whole lot...

With 10% of the gen-pop issued permits to carry before the new law, I wouldn't expect much change at all.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

You're reading to much into my post. The MI constitution is good as far as it goes but it is clearly inferior to the supreme.

My comment wasn't really in reply to just the one post I quoted; you wrote 6 posts harping on the same thing, none of them on point with the OP or legally correct regarding the OP.

Clearly your belief is not clear at all.

There are many areas of law and life where the federal constitution and law can not be "supreme" simply because certain things / actions / issues are invisible to federal jurisdiction.

If federal law has no interest it can not be supreme. Only when there is a conflict or concurrent jurisdiction does supremacy or preemption become evident. The only circumstance I can think of WRT the OP, where your premise would be correct, would be if Keith Appling had been found in possession of his guns and ammo on federal property and the feds claimed prosecutorial jurisdiction.

What "supreme" federal interest is evident in a state gun possession charge in suburban Detroit outside a nightclub? (And we return to what the OP asked you in post #6)

[fj1200]

My comment wasn't really in reply to just the one post I quoted; you wrote 6 posts harping on the same thing, none of them on point with the OP or legally correct regarding the OP.

Clearly your belief is not clear at all.

There are many areas of law and life where the federal constitution and law can not be "supreme" simply because certain things / actions / issues are invisible to federal jurisdiction.

If federal law has no interest it can not be supreme. Only when there is a conflict or concurrent jurisdiction does supremacy or preemption become evident. The only circumstance I can think of WRT the OP, where your premise would be correct, would be if Keith Appling had been found in possession of his guns and ammo on federal property and the feds claimed prosecutorial jurisdiction.

What "supreme" federal interest is evident in a state gun possession charge in suburban Detroit outside a nightclub? (And we return to what the OP asked you in post #6)

Again, you're reading into my post what you want to see. I answered the question you reference and I didn't say that the Federal has an interest in the case in Detroit or that they had interest in everything. If they had an interest then the the Feds would be pressing charges. Respond to what I post not what you imagine.

And I had to "harp" 6 times because that's how long it took for someone to get it. ;) How long for you? :poke:

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Again, you're reading into my post what you want to see. I answered the question you reference and I didn't say that the Federal has an interest in the case in Detroit or that they had interest in everything.

You didn't address the question and I'm reading into your post the only possible argument that can reasonably be made from your statement.

You posit that the Federal Constitution and the laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof (and regulations as well), supersede, control, direct Article 1 Sec 6 of the Michigan constitution, to whit, "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state" and that federal supremacy quashes any question pertaining to the legitimacy of state laws that criminalize arms possession for self-defense.

You argue this supremacy is so controlling it renders the statement that, "there's nothing there [I] that says he has to ask permission from the State to have these weapons in his car" to, in your words, an "incorrect premise".


If they had an interest then the the Feds would be pressing charges.

Correct, which is why I've used that legal point as a central theme of my argument.

You have yet to explain how federal supremacy is a factor here. How does this supremacy inform us and what does it compel us to do (or not do) WRT Article 1 Sec 6 of the Michigan Constitution and this state prosecution for possession of a gun in a car?


Respond to what I post not what you imagine.

Imagining the argument that you must be making (whether you understand it or not) is what I am forced to do because the explanation of your position is transparently thin -- even after going on for 8 posts now.


And I had to "harp" 6 times because that's how long it took for someone to get it. How long for you?

Who do you think "got it?"

All I see from Indago is resignation from a pointless diversion from his OP.

As far as federal law and regulations that may come to bear on Mr. Appling after he is convicted of these state charges (with the imposition of federal felon dispossession) but now, before the trial has even begun, there is no federal "supremacy", "preemption" or regulatory "interest" to speak of.

Please, if you think it so, make your argument explaining the mechanism of this federal supremacy on the case noted in the OP . . .

[Atticus Finch]

I saw that news, kudos to your state legislature and Governor.



Perhaps but I don't have much sympathy for people who get upset when they encounter people simply exercising their rights. It isn't as if WV is the test bed for permitless carry, seven other states have led the way.

And to the point of my earlier post, WV's new carry law has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. There is no federal issue or interest in the law; it is entirely an operation of the state legislature and governor exercising their powers as conferred by the state constitution, recognizing and securing the rights of WV citizens in WV law.

Another direction to look at this --federal vs state-- issue is that West Virginia is a great example of a strong state response to oppositional federal constitutional interpretation (e.g., "the 2nd only protects a collective right") and the storm of federal gun control proposals of that time . . . WV is among a half-dozen states who in the 1980's either enacted a RKBA provision in their state constitutions if they had none or reworded an existing provision to expressly recognize and secure an individual right to arms and in some, specifically to protect armed self-defense.

These actions were undertaken by these states to protect their citizens from interpretations of the 2nd Amendment which were, at that point in time, the prevailing "supreme law" and the rights restricting laws being proposed that were supposedly constitutionally legitimate under that "supreme law".




With 10% of the gen-pop issued permits to carry before the new law, I wouldn't expect much change at all.well the govenor vetoed it twice but it was over ridden by state legislature vote.

[fj1200]

You didn't address the question and I'm reading into your post the only possible argument that can reasonably be made from your statement.

You're still doing it and now are apparently admitting to doing it. :) One cannot just quote a State Constitution and have that be the end argument. The OP has previously quoted State Constitutions, straight marriage as an example, and all the ones which define it is as man/woman are null and void. It might be fun to quote but it belies an underlying ignorance. Just as if someone wanted to quote the AL Constitution that banned interracial marriage for 30? years after such bans were struck down by SCOTUS.

FWIW I haven't seen his lawyers raise the MI Constitution as defense to the charges and are instead challenging the legality of the search.

[Gunny]

You're still doing it and now are apparently admitting to doing it. :) One cannot just quote a State Constitution and have that be the end argument. The OP has previously quoted State Constitutions, straight marriage as an example, and all the ones which define it is as man/woman are null and void. It might be fun to quote but it belies an underlying ignorance. Just as if someone wanted to quote the AL Constitution that banned interracial marriage for 30? years after such bans were struck down by SCOTUS.

FWIW I haven't seen his lawyers raise the MI Constitution as defense to the charges and are instead challenging the legality of the search.

I'd say while just guessing his point is SCOTUS has no purview on the topic of marriage. It is not in the Bill of Rights. That means it falls under the 10th. IMO, SCOTUS has once again overstepped its bounds.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

You're still doing it and now are apparently admitting to doing it. :) One cannot just quote a State Constitution and have that be the end argument. The OP has previously quoted State Constitutions, straight marriage as an example, and all the ones which define it is as man/woman are null and void. It might be fun to quote but it belies an underlying ignorance. Just as if someone wanted to quote the AL Constitution that banned interracial marriage for 30? years after such bans were struck down by SCOTUS.

Well, I've progressed from being condemned for reading too much into your statement to now failing to read into it the context of previous conversations you have had with the OP on subjects completely unrelated to the topic of this thread.

Mmmmmkay, SUPREMACY!!! (e.o.d.) I guess you can tally our exchange as another win where you have persevered with superior argumentation until the other person "got it".


FWIW I haven't seen his lawyers raise the MI Constitution as defense to the charges and are instead challenging the legality of the search.

And here I thought that rebutting your statement specifically in the context of the OP and the topic of the thread and what you quoted and emphasized in bold is the correct form for debate.

[fj1200]

I'd say while just guessing his point is SCOTUS has no purview on the topic of marriage. It is not in the Bill of Rights. That means it falls under the 10th. IMO, SCOTUS has once again overstepped its bounds.

I'm pretty sure you're guessing wrong. And marriage doesn't have to be in the bill of rights to be decided by SCOTUS. All marriage needs is to be legislated at the Federal level and not have all Americans "protected equally" to be decided by SCOTUS; the 10th is irrelevant here as are various state Constitutional amendments defining marriage.

[fj1200]

Well, I've progressed from being condemned for reading too much into your statement to now failing to read into it the context of previous conversations you have had with the OP on subjects completely unrelated to the topic of this thread.

Mmmmmkay, SUPREMACY!!! (e.o.d.) I guess you can tally our exchange as another win where you have persevered with superior argumentation until the other person "got it".

Well the former exposed you to the latter. Sorry about that but seeing as how my comments were not completely unrelated to the topic of the thread. The only "winning" is acknowledgement that Supremacy is a thing. :)


And here I thought that rebutting your statement specifically in the context of the OP and the topic of the thread and what you quoted and emphasized in bold is the correct form for debate.

You presumed that I disagreed with your comments but I think we can both agree that the issue is more complicated than just rattling off a section of the MI Constitution. :)

[Gunny]

I'm pretty sure you're guessing wrong. And marriage doesn't have to be in the bill of rights to be decided by SCOTUS. All marriage needs is to be legislated at the Federal level and not have all Americans "protected equally" to be decided by SCOTUS; the 10th is irrelevant here as are various state Constitutional amendments defining marriage.

Well then, you'd be guessing wron in thinking I am guessing wrong, wouldn't you? Your "needs to be " preface pretty much covers it. Marriage is NOT legislated nor does it need to be. The government's only in it for the fees. The church being willing to do it is a convenience and cost-saving measure for them.

Marriage is contract between Man, Woman and God. Period.

The 10th is NOT irrelvent as in marriage is not in the Bill of Rights. The Federal government has no purview. They just have greedy fingers.

[Atticus Finch]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/FS6W/right-to-bear-arms/image.jpg?w=1024&c=1 (https://memecrunch.com/meme/FS6W/right-to-bear-arms)

[fj1200]

Well then, you'd be guessing wron in thinking I am guessing wrong, wouldn't you? Your "needs to be " preface pretty much covers it. Marriage is NOT legislated nor does it need to be. The government's only in it for the fees. The church being willing to do it is a convenience and cost-saving measure for them.

Marriage is contract between Man, Woman and God. Period.

The 10th is NOT irrelvent as in marriage is not in the Bill of Rights. The Federal government has no purview. They just have greedy fingers.

I'm not thinking as to what you're guessing, I'm thinking to what you're guessing about what he's thinking. I hope that clears up the muddy mess. ;)

But you are wrong as to marriage not being legislated. Marriage is legislated and has been legislated for decades. I agree with you that it shouldn't be legislated and is between two people and possibly God, though he's not a party to an earthly contract, but that doesn't mean that SCOTUS didn't properly review it given the modern day intrusion of government into the interpersonal relationship of its citizens. I also agree with you that it's unfortunate that the 10th is pretty much the most ignored amendment out there, if you in fact hold that opinion (I don't want to guess ;) here). The Federal government has clear purview here as marriage is codified 1000+ times in Federal legislation not to mention countless State laws and regulations.

[Gunny]

I'm not thinking as to what you're guessing, I'm thinking to what you're guessing about what he's thinking. I hope that clears up the muddy mess. ;)

But you are wrong as to marriage not being legislated. Marriage is legislated and has been legislated for decades. I agree with you that it shouldn't be legislated and is between two people and possibly God, though he's not a party to an earthly contract, but that doesn't mean that SCOTUS didn't properly review it given the modern day intrusion of government into the interpersonal relationship of its citizens. I also agree with you that it's unfortunate that the 10th is pretty much the most ignored amendment out there, if you in fact hold that opinion (I don't want to guess ;) here). The Federal government has clear purview here as marriage is codified 1000+ times in Federal legislation not to mention countless State laws and regulations.

It is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. That means it is not the Federal government's business.

[fj1200]

It is not addressed in the Bill of Rights. That means it is not the Federal government's business.

That is flat wrong. Our Federal government is involved in far more things than those in the BoRs.

[Gunny]

That is flat wrong. Our Federal government is involved in far more things than those in the BoRs.

Not even close, junior. I am well aware our Federal government has its nose in all kinds of crap it isn't supposed to. I cry foul every time. This is just yet another example. Marriage is NOT covered in the Constitution therefore the Supreme Court has no purview. It falls under the 10th Amendment.

It would be YOU who is flat wrong.

[fj1200]

Not even close, junior. I am well aware our Federal government has its nose in all kinds of crap it isn't supposed to. I cry foul every time. This is just yet another example. Marriage is NOT covered in the Constitution therefore the Supreme Court has no purview. It falls under the 10th Amendment.

It would be YOU who is flat wrong.

No. SCOTUS has decided literally 1000's of times on things not covered in the BoR. We agree though that the Feds are way beyond their original mandate and areas of relevance.

[Gunny]

No. SCOTUS has decided literally 1000's of times on things not covered in the BoR. We agree though that the Feds are way beyond their original mandate and areas of relevance.

I haven't been arguing what they've done. I'm arguing what they're supposed to be doing. Interpreting the law. Not creating it. This, by word of law, should have been kicked back to the states. I've watched them do it for decades.

Some guy on death throw gets his sh*t kicked out but they'll listen to marriage arguments. Nice. They rule 3 years AFTER the Civil War is over that states can't secede. The law does not say that and it is an incorrect ruling. Row v Wade. The list goes on.

The Supreme Court constantly oversteps its bounds. You're arguing what they do while I'm arguing what they're supposed to be doing.

[gabosaurus]

Dude, you gotta do something about those beary hairy arms.

http://blog.indieflix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_m4gcyxjZka1qb9oa5o1_1280.gif

[fj1200]

I haven't been arguing what they've done. I'm arguing what they're supposed to be doing. Interpreting the law. Not creating it. This, by word of law, should have been kicked back to the states. I've watched them do it for decades.

Some guy on death throw gets his sh*t kicked out but they'll listen to marriage arguments. Nice. They rule 3 years AFTER the Civil War is over that states can't secede. The law does not say that and it is an incorrect ruling. Row v Wade. The list goes on.

The Supreme Court constantly oversteps its bounds. You're arguing what they do while I'm arguing what they're supposed to be doing.

One of those positions is in the real world and one is not.

[aboutime]

Dude, you gotta do something about those beary hairy arms.

http://blog.indieflix.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/tumblr_m4gcyxjZka1qb9oa5o1_1280.gif


Gabby. You can solve your problem of trying to look like Robin Williams, and just SHAVE.

[Gunny]

One of those positions is in the real world and one is not.

I think I already said I understand the difference. The difference does not change the ideal.

[fj1200]

I think I already said I understand the difference. The difference does not change the ideal.

I guess we're not having the same discussion then. :thumb: