Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Counting to Five in D.C. v. Heller
In one of the threads about the D.C. gun ban case, at least one commenter was skeptical that there are (at least) five votes on the Supreme Court in favor of an individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. If you read the transcript of yesterday's oral arguments, you'll see that John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Anthony Kennedy are pretty clearly on board:
Roberts [addressing Walter Dellinger, D.C.'s attorney]: If [the right to keep and bear arms] is limited to State militias, why would they say "the right of the people"?...
That concedes your main point that there is an individual right and gets to the separate question of whether the regulations at issue here are reasonable....
So if you have a law that prohibits the possession of books, it's all right if you allow the possession of newspapers? [referring to the distinction between handguns and long guns]
Scalia: I don't see how there's any contradiction between reading the second clause [of the amendment] as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia....The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....
[Blackstone] thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee.
Alito: If the amendment is intended at least in part to protect the right to self-defense in the home, how could the District code provision survive under any standard of review where they totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense, and even as to long guns and shotguns...they have to be unloaded and disassembled or locked at all times, even presumably if someone is breaking into the home?
Kennedy: The amendment says we reaffirm the right to have a militia, we've established it, but in addition, there is a right to bear arms....
In my view [the Second Amendment] supplemented [the Militia Clause] by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia.
Clarence Thomas, as is his wont, did not say anything during the oral arguments. But if any justice could be counted on to support a Second Amendment that imposes significant restraints on gun control, it would be him. Thomas is an avowed "original intent" jurist, and the contemporaneous evidence on the meaning of the Second Amendment, as demonstrated in the respondent and amicus briefs (not to mention the appeals court decision overturning D.C.'s gun ban), strongly favors the view that it is about more than state militias.
|3.19.08 @ 6:09PM|#
I'm not clear on my Supreme Court history, but Clarence Thomas is the biggest douchebag to ever sit on the bench, right?
|3.19.08 @ 6:16PM|#
I'll repeat a question I asked in one of the other threads
dealing with Heller:
Typically speaking, are the questions the justices ask during oral
arguments a good indicator of how they will rule?
|3.19.08 @ 6:17PM|#
I believe I read somewhere that Clarence Thomas forces all of his staff members to read Atlas Shrugged.
|3.19.08 @ 6:20PM|#
I am getting my hopes up. The cynic in me points out that my hopes have been dashed before.
|3.19.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Actually, Thomas occasionally sounds like a libertarian. He's
best in his dissents. Which is true for most justices, it
seems.
What's this business about top-two primaries, by the way?
Other Matt|3.19.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Typically speaking, are the questions the justices ask
during oral arguments a good indicator of how they will
rule?
No particular knowlege here, but I have heard someplace in the past
that the justices use their questioning period to indicate their
viewpoints, kind of like obscure smoke signals or something. Don't
count on my word, but I have heard it someplace, not connected with
DC v H
I am getting my hopes up. The cynic in me points out that my
hopes have been dashed before.
I'm right there with you.
|3.19.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Being a douchebag and being a libertarian are not mutually exclusive. You know who you are.
|3.19.08 @ 6:35PM|#
The framers wrote the Constitution using what was, for their
place and time, clear language that they intended every citizen to
be able to comprehend. It is not and never has been up to the
Justices to explain and interpret the Constitution for us mere
citizens. We the People are sovereign, and if we expect to remain
so, each of us must make the effort to read and understand this
fundamental law of the land.
That said, in accepting a case that requires them to deal directly
with the Second Amendment, the Justices have agreed to take the
most closely watched English exam ever. It is up to us, We the
People, to grade that exam. And I think the Justices know it.
|3.19.08 @ 6:46PM|#
On an earlier thread MikeP said that is was not just wrong to
read the 2nd as a collective right, it was also unreasonable.
Bullocks said I. Mike's answer was that it may be reasonable to
read the "arms" as militial arms it is not reasonable to read the
"people" as state militias since the first amendment's use of the
people obviously doesn't refer to "press organizations" and the
like, but instead individuals. Bullocks again says I. The first
amendment, if it were written like the 2nd, would read something
like this "since a free press is very important, the right of
people to free speech is protected."
So while I think the individual right reading of the 2nd is the
MOST reasonable I still think its incorrect to label the
collectivists reading as unreasonable. And that's why it is sad
this case will break down along ideological lines. There is no
reason why a Souter could not see the individual right as the most
reasonable, or that for Scalia to see the opposite. For our highest
judges to have their legal analysis determined by the political
alliances of the day is pathetic.
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 7:05PM|#
That said, in accepting a case that requires them to deal
directly with the Second Amendment, the Justices have agreed to
take the most closely watched English exam ever. It is up to us, We
the People, to grade that exam. And I think the Justices know
it.
That is either the thickest melodramatic way to put something
really simple, or a thinly veiled death threat. ;)
As for biggest douche ever to sit on the bench...while Thomas is
batshit crazy, biggest douche has to go to that guy who refused to
speak to Felix Frankfurter the entire time they were on the court
together just because F.F. was Jewish; it was either Van Devanter
or McReynolds. I can't remember. Come to think of it, they were
kinda both douches, so either way...
Brian Ewart|3.19.08 @ 7:16PM|#
Clarence Thomas tends towards the most libertarian decisions on
the court. He will probably write a concurrence that supports a
stronger right than the majority.
He usually doesn't say much during oral arguments though. He lets
the other justices do battle.
LarryA|3.19.08 @ 7:29PM|#
For our highest judges to have their legal analysis
determined by the political alliances of the day is
pathetic.
I think it works the other way around. The justices have individual
political philosophies that guide their rulings, and also determine
their political alliances.
Count me in the unreasonably optimistic camp. I've been in this
since 1968. I think we're making progress, but it's far from
over.
|3.19.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Actually, Thomas occasionally sounds like a libertarian. He's best in his dissents. Which is true for most justices, it seems.
Actually I find that his separate concurrences are sometimes
awfully good.
He sometimes seems to say, "I would change this law if I could."
But it's only actually stupid (or immoral) not
unconstitutional.
I appreciate the fact that at least one of the Justices knows the
difference.
|3.19.08 @ 7:34PM|#
biggest douche has to go to that guy who refused to speak to
Felix Frankfurter the entire time they were on the court together
just because F.F. was Jewish; it was either Van Devanter or
McReynolds.
Elemenope, you're thinking of McReynolds, though Van Devanter was
also clearly antisemitic as well. And, refusing to speak to Jewish
justices (I believe he was known for not speaking to Brandeis and
Cardozo, but I wouldn't be surprised if Frankfurter is on the list
as well) was but one of his milder insults. It's probably no
surprise he was a big supporter of the racist Wilson and served as
Wilson's AG before Wilson appointed him to the Court. Overall,
McReynolds has to rank near (if not at) the top of anyone's list of
biggest douches to ever serve on the court. The guy was a simply a
miserable, disgusting person.
|3.19.08 @ 7:52PM|#
I'm not clear on my Supreme Court history, but Clarence
Thomas is the biggest douchebag to ever sit on the bench,
right?
Actually, if he's the 5th vote in overturning the D.C. gun ban and
asserting an individual right to keep and bear arms, I suspect tens
of millions of gun owners and respecters of the Constitution will
vehemently disagree with your assessment.
The douchebags are the four who want to gut the Second Amendment,
IMO.
|3.19.08 @ 7:55PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
You seem to disagree with deciding cases based on original intent,
based on fundamental principals such as natural rights, and now
even based on political beliefs.
Just what do you think justices are supposed to decide on? Whether
the first stoplight they hit the morning of the decision is red or
green?
LarryA is right. Because a decision appears to be determined
according to political alliances does not mean that political
alliances determined the decision. The decisions and the alliances
have the same cause: the legal and political beliefs of the
individual justices.
|3.19.08 @ 8:09PM|#
I think they should decide cases based on the original meaning
of the language of the text (Scalia calls this "textualism").
Scalia for example is not in his legal analysis a proponent of
natural rights or law that I can tell. He's a positivist that feels
bound by the text itself. Because majorities passed it and that is
what a democracy is all about...
"The decisions and the alliances have the same cause: the legal and
political beliefs of the individual justices."
Yes, but there is nothing inherent in believing in "natural
rights", or conservatism or liberalism that demands one to take
position y or x on gun control. So my point is that the
conservative or originalist or natural right judges are not ruling
for gun control because their conservative/originialist/natural
right philosophies logically demand it, but because they are
Republicans and the Republican party currently supports gun owner
rights (because like minded interest groups have aligned themselves
with that party right now) and vice versa for the liberals on the
court.
100 years ago the GOP was the party of tariffs and the Dems were
the party of free trade, the Dems were the party of religious
fundamentalism (Jennins Bryan?) and the Republicans of
freethinking, the GOP the party of civil rights, the Dems the party
opposed. Our political parties would love to convince us they
represent coherent ideologies, but they in reality seem to
represent collections of interest group that have fallen together
by historical accident as much as anything else. Our judges
certainly should not be like that.
|3.19.08 @ 8:18PM|#
You make good points. It is entirely possible -- if not probable -- that most if not all justices have beliefs built more on convenience than on principal and discover or invent the principal to justify the beliefs.
Neu Mejican|3.19.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Since MNG brought up reasonable.
The 2nd seems most reasonably to be about the right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of having a strong militia.
That means, it seems, that neither the individual nor the
collective rights interpretations are quite right.
It ain't about self-protection, but protection of the "free
state."
That means the militia, which is made up of individuals referred to
collectively as "the people," needs to keep and bear arms.
This means that the important debate will be not about individual
vs. collective right interpretations, but about the interpretation
of "infringe" and "reasonable limitations" and the like.
Neu Mejican|3.19.08 @ 8:21PM|#
The problem with textualism is that the meaning of written language is under-determined by the text in isolation.
|3.19.08 @ 8:27PM|#
NM-I see your point. But since I'm a fairly liberal guy (at least relative to a lot of folks on this site, where I work I'm one of the right-wing nut jobs believe it or not), I tend to think that where the text is under-determined (like "just compensation") the rights at stake should be read broadly. And I think the 2nd Amendment is no "red-headed step child," if there is a narrow way to read the right (it really only applies to state militias) or a broad way (it really applies to every individual), we should take the broad one. Believe it or not I like it when there are more as opposed to less areas that the government (the majority) cannot tell those who disagree with them what to do, thus my liking of reading whatever rights are in the text as broadly as reason allows...
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 8:35PM|#
...you're thinking of McReynolds, though Van Devanter was
also clearly antisemitic as well. And, refusing to speak to Jewish
justices...
Thanks for the clarifying info. :)
The douchebags are the four who want to gut the Second
Amendment.
I hold out some (scant) hope that Souter and/or Breyer may be
closet 2nd amendment guys. After all, the issue isn't exactly a
liberal litmus test, and neither of them are consistently liberal
to begin with. (Lest we forget what "consistently liberal" means,
re: Warren court.)
I find that when I don't have expectations, the only thing that can
happen is a pleasant surprise. ;)
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 8:36PM|#
The problem with textualism is that the meaning of written
language is under-determined by the text in isolation.
You could mean many things, here. I'm not sure which one you
desired to convey...
Neu Mejican|3.19.08 @ 8:48PM|#
MNG,
I agree that the broad interpretation is the better way to
go.
FWIW, I am of the opinion that the 2nd needs to be read in the
context of the 1st amendment...as, in essence, an extension of the
right to assemble...making sure that it is clear that assembling
with guns to protect the free state is included in the right to
assemble and petition the government.
|3.19.08 @ 8:50PM|#
I still fail to see why Clarence Thomas gets raked over the coals here. He's one of only two justices who was on the side of the angels in all of Raich, Kelo, and Hamdi.
|3.19.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Clarence Thomas is the biggest douchebag to ever sit on the
bench, right?
Not even close. Look up the asswipes who wrote the Korematsu, Dred
Scott, and Kelo decisions.
-jcr
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I still fail to see why Clarence Thomas gets raked over the
coals here.
I, for one, think he's nuts because he treats the process of
stare decisis like it was shat from the flaming mouth of
Satan himself. Yeah, he occasionally comes down on the right side,
but his reasoning rarely has anything to do with the actual process
of law, respect for precedent, or knowledge of reality.
That, in a judge, shares the shit out of me, regardless of his or
her ideological leanings. Also, he's creepy, in a "pube on a Coke"
kind of way.
|3.19.08 @ 9:05PM|#
Priapus-You make a good point (though I'm not sure what you
thinking of by using Hamdi as an example here [here is wiki's sum
of Thomas' opinion there: "Justice Clarence Thomas was the only
justice who sided entirely with the government and the Fourth
Circuit's ruling, based on his view of the important security
interests at stake and the President's broad war-making powers."].
Thomas has at times made some brave stands for liberty. But at
other times he has been quite terrible, ruling as in Hamdi above,
or to overrule Tinker in the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case, or in the
euthanasia cases, etc. He also strikes me and a lot of people as
being something a dick in "real life."
But I think it's bizarre to think he's the biggest douchebag that
has ever been on the court. As noted above I like Scalia's (avowed)
judicial philosophy, but that man is probably a huge dick.
If we go back in history Fred Vinson had some terrible opinions.
And consider Taney (who wrote the majority in Dred Scott).
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 9:05PM|#
Not even close. Look up the asswipes who wrote the
Korematsu, Dred Scott, and Kelo decisions.
You know, Taney completely slipped my mind when I was trying to
think of the douchiest justice ever. But then again, wasn't he on
the court in Milligan? Doesn't make up for Dred
Scott by a long shot, but still.
|3.19.08 @ 9:06PM|#
I've heard some oral arguments and Breyer comes off as a bit of a dick as well. And I've read that Douglas was one of the worst human beings in the judicial universe.
|3.19.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Elemenope: I, for one, think he's nuts
because he treats the process of stare decisis like it was shat
from the flaming mouth of Satan himself.
That's exactly what I like about him. He won't stand by bad case
law just because it's "settled."
|3.19.08 @ 10:10PM|#
lmnope-
Liberals were never all that big on stare decisis - until it came
to preservation of THEIR favored rulings. Wickard, Brown, Roe -
which of those showed respect to precedent?
And what was more satanic - slavish devotion to Plessy, or pissing
on stare decisis in Brown?
For my money, Stevens is the biggest douche of the moment, probably
Taney and McReynolds for all-time.
|3.19.08 @ 10:20PM|#
Justice Thomas in Printz vs. US:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZC1.html
The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. That Amendment provides: "[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." This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. [n.1] If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to "keep and bear arms," a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections. [n.2] As the parties did not raise this argument, however, we need not consider it here. Perhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to bear arms "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."
Elemenope|3.19.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Liberals were never all that big on stare decisis - until it
came to preservation of THEIR favored rulings. Wickard, Brown, Roe
- which of those showed respect to precedent?
Roe directly descends from Griswold, which I think is your better
pick for complaining about liberals making up law from the bench.
Brown follows directly from Korematsu -- Race is a suspect class,
and educational segregation fails the test; Korematsu was not
available as a precedent in Plessy. Wickard is a true reversal, but
no less than the court's double (conservative) reversal in
Lopez.
And I never claimed that liberal justices were angels.
And what was more satanic - slavish devotion to Plessy, or
pissing on stare decisis in Brown?
I said *scary*, not *bad*. Like I said, sometimes, despite himself,
Thomas gets it right on the merits. In 1954, the court saying
"y'know, fuck it: Integrate the schools" was damn scary too. Didn't
make it *bad*, per se, but scary coming as it was from the bench
and not the legislature.
For my money, Stevens is the biggest douche of the moment,
probably Taney and McReynolds for all-time.
Besides Kelo, which is the current liberal embarrassment, I think
that Thomas has actually amassed the more obnoxious voting
record... Particularly in supporting the fed over prisoner's habeas
rights and supporting school admin over free speech.
Paul|3.19.08 @ 11:09PM|#
I'm not clear on my Supreme Court history, but Clarence
Thomas is the biggest douchebag to ever sit on the bench,
right?
No, Clarence Thomas is one of the most interesting judges (and
intelligent) to sit on the court in a very, very long time.
I remember the first time I was personally impressed by Thomas. He
was speaking in front of a group of young journalism majors about
constitutional issues. Repeatedly (as is their wont) the young,
fresh-faced journalism students kept asking him the same basic
question, but worded differently each time:
"So like, what if there's something that might be protected by the
constitution, but you might feel that it's wrong to uphold it...and
stuff?"
All of this was during the height of the MSM agreement on tobacco
debates. Anyhoo, Thomas attempted, in several different ways to
address these similar questions in a scholarly way. After still
getting the question (worded slightly differently) in spite of
delivering his politic, intelligent and sound answer, he finally
slapped his notes on the podium and said something (I'm
paraphrasing) that was very much to the effect of:
Thomas, showing overt signs of exasperation: *sigh* "Ok, we have
this document. And it's called the Constitution. And we as the
sitting judges on the court use this document as a kind of guide to
help us figure out how we're going to rule on certain cases. We
don't rule on our feelings or our emotions, we refer to this
document when we make our decisions"
Brian Ewart|3.19.08 @ 11:13PM|#
Elemenope: "I, for one, think he's nuts because he treats the
process of stare decisis like it was shat from the flaming mouth of
Satan himself. Yeah, he occasionally comes down on the right side,
but his reasoning rarely has anything to do with the actual process
of law, respect for precedent, or knowledge of reality."
The only times I've read Thomas criticizing precedent was when he
felt that that precedent was incorrect. As a justice on the highest
court in the land, he has the power to overrule precedent, so this
should not be an issue. If there was a precedent that forced the
court to hold that there is no right to free speech, would you want
it upheld?
What does more to dishonor and disrespect precedent and the process
of law is when judges take prior precedent and apply it to unlike
situations, or distinguish cases unnecessarily in order to get
their way.
juris imprudent: Roe v. Wade was based on precedent set in Griswold
v. Connecticut.
Elemenope: I'm sorry, but I've read a lot of Thomas in class this
year and I have only disagreed with him once. And he eventually
voted to overrule the one I disagreed with in a later case. His
dissent in Hamdi aside, his record is largely pro-freedom.
robc|3.19.08 @ 11:25PM|#
elemenope,
Others have said similar things, but I think of Thomas' view of
stare decisis like physics of math. You can build on other people's
works, but, you should be able to start from scratch and prove
whatever you need to prove. The judicial version is the same. If
you start over from just the constitution and common law, you ought
to reach the same point as the stare decisis decision. If you dont,
either you did something wrong or the precident is wrong. Stare
decisis is only a good thing when the original decision is correct.
Which means you never really need it in the first place.
And for those that say that radically overturning centuries of
decisions would cause chaos, I have two words for you: Hail
Eris!
robc|3.19.08 @ 11:26PM|#
robc's Thomas-Scalia rule:
When Thomas and Scalia disagree, Thomas is always right.
|3.19.08 @ 11:26PM|#
Roe directly descends from Griswold
Not as a matter of stare decisis, though I will grant you that
Griswold is a piece of work in and of itself. I could've accepted
them basing the damn result on the 9th Amdt, questionable as that
might be, rather than on penumbras, etc.
Brown follows directly from Korematsu
What on earth do you think you are talking about? Korematsu was
about rounding up Japanese-Americans and holding them in internment
camps. Definitely separate, but hardly equal. That leads to Gitmo,
military tribunals, etc. - not desegregated schools.
Wickard is a true reversal
Are you posting drunk or something? Wickard was the culmination of
New Deal jurisprudence. Lopez attempted to put a bound on commerce
clause power - which Raich by the way thoroughly destroyed (and
affirmed Wickard). And WHO authored Raich? Douchebag Stevens. And
Thomas' dissent in Raich is unanswerable.
Thomas has actually amassed the more obnoxious voting
record...
Certainly if you find limited [federal] govt to be obnoxious.
robc|3.19.08 @ 11:30PM|#
One more Thomas thing - someone mentioned euthanasia up above. If you read his concurring opinion in Oregon, its pretty clear he only took the position he did in order to pile on the Raich decision. He used Raich as precident in Oregon and blasted the authors of Raich for not following stare decisis. Heck, it was only a month old or so and they were already backing away from it. I thought it was brilliant on his part.
Gilbert Martin|3.19.08 @ 11:31PM|#
"No, Clarence Thomas is one of the most interesting judges (and
intelligent) to sit on the court in a very, very long time."
Indeed.
I have heard that he considers FDR's "New Deal" to be
unconstitutional.
And he's exactly right about that.
|3.19.08 @ 11:38PM|#
Roe v. Wade was based on precedent set in Griswold v.
Connecticut.
Yes, it was an extension of the Griswold precedent.
Brown was a direct challenge to the precendent of Plessy. If you
hold stare decisis to be sacrosanct, Plessy was settled law.
Liberals [quite rightly] had no love for stare decisis.
See the difference?
The value of stare decisis is in conserving the existing
body of law, without resorting to first principles. For that, it is
quite handy. But it retards righting wrongs embodied in the
law.
|3.19.08 @ 11:51PM|#
Just to add, both Griswold and it's progeny Roe, overturned state law - again, not exactly respectful of stare decisis OR deferential to the legislative branch.
Elemenope|3.20.08 @ 12:38AM|#
What on earth do you think you are talking about? Korematsu
was about rounding up Japanese-Americans and holding them in
internment camps. Definitely separate, but hardly equal. That leads
to Gitmo, military tribunals, etc. - not desegregated
schools.
Not drunk....:)
Korematsu, whatever its defects, established the strict scrutiny
test for governmental regulation infringing upon a vested right
against a class of person. Thus, Brown, which talks about education
as a vested right, cannot be denied on account of race, a suspect
class, without compelling state interest (which is obviously
absent). That's how a liberal would defend the case as stemming
from prior law, anywho.
Wickard was a nail in the coffin for a particular interpretation,
and then stood for sixty years. Lopez was a reversal of Wickard. I
agree that Lopez was the better reading of the commerce clause, but
the argument is not about who was right or wrong, but rather which
side relied on stare decisis more.
Point is, neither side's hands are clean, but Thomas is very, very
unclean in this regard.
|3.20.08 @ 2:32AM|#
Korematsu, whatever its defects
Damning with faint praise? Hey, that Dred Scott decision wasn't ALL
bad, was it?
C'mon, Korematsu was all about papering over naked prejudice.
Doesn't matter how much the ex-Klansman tried to pretty up the
language, nor was the 'scrutiny' all that 'strict'. In which case
those words do not possess the power you would otherwise ascribe to
them.
|3.20.08 @ 2:34AM|#
Being a douchebag and being a libertarian are not mutually exclusive. You know who you are.
Heyyyyyyyy evvvvvverybodddy, how are you? *hic*
|3.20.08 @ 2:52AM|#
Went off and re-read Brown. A lot of silly language to claim
that things are different now (1954) - rather then just saying the
racist bastards of 1896 that gave us Plessy were wrong (wrong then
and still wrong now).
Sometimes you have to wonder why plain, simple language isn't
enough. Oh, that's right - this thread was about not being able to
parse "the right of the people"...
|3.20.08 @ 2:56AM|#
"The 2nd seems most reasonably to be about the right to keep and
bear arms for the purpose of having a strong militia. "
Good grief, NM, your silliness is getting old!
|3.20.08 @ 7:33AM|#
robc's Thomas-Scalia rule:
When Thomas and Scalia disagree, Thomas is always right.
Actually, even when Thomas and Scalia agree (which is
frequently) they are coming to the conclusions for different
reasons.
Or at least that's the impression I get from his separate
opinions.
Gilbert Martin|3.20.08 @ 8:37AM|#
"On an earlier thread MikeP said that is was not just wrong to
read the 2nd as a collective right, it was also
unreasonable."
Indeed it is.
Individuals have rights and governments have powers.
There are no "collective" rights to begin with.
Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize
Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights
of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who
are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." --
Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
|3.20.08 @ 9:54AM|#
NM--I tend to avoid the gun threads, so if this has already been
said, please forgive.
The collective duty of a militia is not worth much without an
individual right to bear arms. You can't have the 1st listed
component in the Amendment without the 2nd component.
The framers could have put in a better justification for the right,
such as defense of the home, but they most likely thought that the
3rd, 4th and 9th handled that scenario and considering what the
country just came out of, was a distant 2nd (no pun) in terms of
importance.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 11:28AM|#
JW,
We are, essentially, in agreement.
If you look at the textual history of the 2nd, the topic under
consideration for the whole debate was militia...which was defined
as the citizenry. The final version seems to say that the people
have the right to keep arms so that they can bear arms to protect
the free state from threats internal or external. And the
government can not take steps to infringe that right, since in
context, these guys saw the government as one of the primary
potential threats to the free state.
That is what, imho, the second was about and my interpretation is
pretty mainstream.
The right to own arms to defend oneself and one's family is not
expressly included in the Bill of Rights. The topic doesn't seem to
have come up. That doesn't mean that right is not covered by the
9th & 10th.
Wayne,
On this issue, your inability to discuss things like an adult is
tiresome.
The language of the second is ambiguous enough to make its meaning
debatable. Interpretation of it requires examination of the context
under which it was written. That context strongly favors a "its
about militia" reading, imho. That is pretty much the standard
reading of the 2nd among scholars (you know that, you even linked
me to an article at guncite which says as much).
If you don't want to consider others opinions, don't get involved
in discussion boards.
|3.20.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Historically, the goal of firearms bans has always been to keep
"the wrong sort of people" ( read, racial minorities ) from
possessing guns. "Cities with a high incidence of violence" or
"urban overcrowding" being able to prohibit firearms is just modern
code for the same racist claptrap. Everybody knows who lives in
THESE cities and whom they are talking about.
Unfortunately, some of it comes from black leaders, who seem to
have a very poor opinion of those they "lead". Not to mention the
"White man's burden" inplication that everyone should give up their
second amendment rights just because minority males might misuse
them.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Gilbert Martin,
There are no "collective" rights to begin with.
That is a political position, not an axiom.
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is hard for an individual to assemble (or associated for that
matter). The right doesn't even make sense until you have groups of
people acting in concert.
|3.20.08 @ 11:53AM|#
That is what, imho, the second was about and my
interpretation is pretty mainstream.
Well, this is what you get when you design through a committee.
Debates over commas. ;-)
|3.20.08 @ 12:10PM|#
I'm not clear on my Supreme Court history, but Clarence
Thomas is the biggest douchebag to ever sit on the bench,
right?
Now I dunno about all Justices in history, but looking at just the
current crop, for my money Scalia is the biggest douche sitting on
the court right now.
He makes it obvious that his political preferences dictate how he
will rule (as was evidenced in the Raich case).
He also has no moral center. He has been giving speeches lately
defending
torture with the fucking Jack Bauer/24 rationale. He also told the
BBC that he believes it is "absurd" to think that the
government can't torture to get info and he doesn't
believe that judges should decide about "human rights, torture,
gay rights, and abortion."
I may not always agree with Thomas, but he has been rather
consistent. Scalia on the other hand is nothing but a political
tool and a flawed human being.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 12:12PM|#
JW,
Indeed.
Committee writing is a very tortuous process.
It is amazing that the founding documents are as clear as they
are.
I, fwiw, think this earlier version was better.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously
scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military
service in person.
The NM constitution does a pretty good job too.
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear
arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held
to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
Gun rights, like most things, are a local/state level issue. The DC
situation is odd due to DC's relationship to the federal
government.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 12:16PM|#
The interesting task the court will have is describing why DC's
gun laws are unreasonable infringements of the 2nd, and defining a
workable test for when similar laws cross the line from regulation
into infringement.
I realize, saying that, that many around here see "regulation" and
"infringement" as the same thing. I am not so sure they are
logically equivalent. Gun registration, for instance, doesn't seem
to infringe the right to keep or bear arms.
|3.20.08 @ 12:55PM|#
I would not be terribly surprised if Ruth B. Ginsburg supports the idea of the Second Amendment guaranteeing (not granting, of course,) an individual right. She was part of the majority in Verdugo-Urdiguez(sp) that listed the Second Amendment, among others, as an individual right guarantee.
|3.20.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Kent Horton makes a good point. In fact it is possible that all
the justices will for the first time actually educate themselves on
this issue and that we'll be pleasantly surprised.
Furthermore, those expecting their hopes to be dashed should hope
for a 9-0 decision. That way even dashed hopes still leave room for
a 7-2 beyond-question decision or a 5-4 bare-majority
decision.
If you hope for 5-4, you leave yourself no room between
disappointment and a bad decision.
Gilbert Martin|3.20.08 @ 1:48PM|#
"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances."
"It is hard for an individual to assemble (or associated for that
matter). The right doesn't even make sense until you have groups of
people acting in concert."
Wrong.
The right is an individual one of each person to decide to join (or
start) any particularly assembly or not. The assembled group is the
collective RESULT - it is not a collective RIGHT.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Gilbert,
The right is an individual one of each person to decide to join
(or start) any particularly assembly or not. The assembled group is
the collective RESULT - it is not a collective RIGHT.
Wrong.
The right to assembly involves an activity (think speech) that
requires more than an individual if it is to take place.
If you think about how the government might infringe upon that
right, they would ban the activity and would be infringing upon the
rights of the group of individuals involved in that activity.
How would the government enforce a law against assembly against an
individual?
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Cop: Hey buddy, don't you know you can't assemble here?
Loner: I am standing, not assembling.
vs.
Cop: Hey you two, don't you know you can't assemble here?
Duo: We can according to the 1st amendment to the constitution, you
are infringing upon OUR rights.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Gilbert,
The problems with your formulation are compounded when you read
more carefully.
The right is an individual one of each person to decide to join
(or start) any particularly assembly or not.
You do not have a right to join my group or any particular assemble
unless they agree to your inclusion. The group has a right to set
the conditions for membership.
Like all rights, the group's right to exclude you may be subject to
certain limitations, but the basic principle is well
established.
Now, you do (or should...a message some unions don't get) have the
right NOT to join a group. That is clearly an individual right.
|3.20.08 @ 4:45PM|#
How would the government enforce a law against assembly
against an individual?
Uh... By arresting him?
Surely it's not that easy, is it?
Arrestee: But all of them are assembling too? Why aren't you
arresting them?
Cop: Because I recognize their collective right to assemble. I
don't recognize your individual right to. Don't you see the
difference?
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 4:55PM|#
MikeP,
True enough, cops only arrest individuals.
But the activity that individual is being arrested for in your
example requires the group activity. Otherwise he is being arrested
for something other than his assembling. The 1st protects the
activity that, by definition, requires a group.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 5:04PM|#
MikeP,
Of course, the logical problem with your example is this.
The right of the group to be involved in the activity of assembly
protects the individuals that make up the group.
If you want to turn that on its head and say that it is the right
of individuals that protects the group, fine, but that framing is a
political position, not axiomatic.
What is axiomatic is that assembly is an activity involving a
group/collection.
Neu Mejican|3.20.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Person one: Hey, what are you doing?
Person two: I am assembling with you.
Person one: no you are not.
Who is right? Person one or Person two?
I would say person one.
The assembling can not commence until the plural entity agrees it
is occurring.
|3.20.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Cops hear of an assembly at the corner of Wabash and Lake. They
stand nearby. They ask the first person who shows up, "Are you here
for an assembly?" He says, "Yes." They arrest him.
Rinse and repeat as needed. No assembly required.
|3.20.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Neu Mejican,
The logical problems you see are caused by your insistence that the
right to assembly is a collective right.
Reserving judgment on the concept of a collective right, I fail to
see why one person holding up a sign is not an assembly of
one.
What, the cops can arrest him because there aren't two of them? But
once there are two, they can't arrest him? Is that at all
sensible?
Incidentally, is the right to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances also a collective right because it appears after "the
people" in the First Amendment?
Neu Mejican|3.21.08 @ 12:10AM|#
MikeP,
The logical problems you see are caused by your insistence that
the right to assembly is a collective right.
No. They are caused by the logical requirement that the activity
"to assemble" requires more than one unit (e.g.,person).
I fail to see why one person holding up a sign is not an
assembly of one.
Because it takes two to do the assembly tango.
What, the cops can arrest him because there aren't two of them?
But once there are two, they can't arrest him? Is that at all
sensible?
Incidentally, is the right to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances also a collective right because it appears after "the
people" in the First Amendment?
No.
You are confusing the two.
The guy with the sign is involved in a solo activity that is
protected, perhaps, under free speech rights, the right to petition
the government, or some such that does not require collective
action. Until he and another individual decide to assemble into a
unit for some shared purpose, no assembly exists.
|3.21.08 @ 2:15AM|#
NM,
I guess you would make a good lawyer. You would undoubtedly be able
to stand in front of the Supremes and defend DC's gun ban.
Personally, I would be unable to stand there and say thigs like,
"DC's gun ban recognizes the right of citizens to keep a loaded
rifle on their nightstand, with trigger lock installed, if there
are no children present, if they are arrested while doing so they
may appeal their arrest and conviction under the ban and that would
make a good test case whether that part of the DC ban is allowed
under the constitution, but not withstanding the decision on that
part of the ban it is entirely constitutional to ban handguns
entirely because 2A is a collective right and not an individual
right because you can not have an assembled gun because an
assembled gun is clearly a collection of parts, hence as I pointed
out it is a collective right."
|3.21.08 @ 2:44AM|#
Three people standing in a loose cluster listening to a concert
in the park.
Cop, with a threatening frown on his face: Are you three
assembling?
Three people: Uh, I don't know about him, but I am just standing
here. Gee, officer me too, but that other guy looks like an
assembly type.
Cop, now focusing on the obviously guilty assembler: You
assembling? The other guys ratted you out. You got no respect for
the constitution or something?
Third guy: Well officer, I admit that I wanted to assemble and I
tried to assemble but these other two lone-wackos (tm) won't
cooperate. So, obviously even though it was my intent to assemble,
I am not assembling because the other two are not assembling and it
takes a plurality to assemble.
Cop: God, what a fucked-up country.
Three guys, all muttering, yeah, but it is the law...
|3.21.08 @ 6:48AM|#
Neu Mejican,
Forgive me for thinking there is some Platonic ideal behind the law
that the language of the law is imperfectly describing.
I see no use for the law to have a discontinuity between 1 and 2
where individual rights suddenly become collective rights, whatever
difference that might represent. Rather I see rights as all
individual and all continuous whether a person is speaking alone or
speaking to an assembly, whether a person is marching alone or
marching in an assembly.
And yet the Aristotelean within me says that, if there is no
practical difference between your collective right of a group to
assemble and my individual rights of individuals to assemble, then
I really don't care what you call it.
Do you see a practical difference regarding the right to assembly
analogous to the alleged practical difference regarding the right
to keep and bear arms?
Neu Mejican|3.21.08 @ 10:27AM|#
MikeP,
I have stated many many times that there is an individual right to
keep and bear arms.
Whether or not the 2nd amendment protects that particular right is
debatable.
But let's assume that the 2nd amendment is analogous to the right
to assembly and is about the rights of a group of people to keep
and bear arms for the purpose of protecting the free state.
Just as the right of a group to assemble protects the individuals
in that group, the right for a militia to keep and bear arms
protects the right of individuals in that militia to keep and bear
arms.
Given that the militia is the citizenry, a collective
interpretation of 2nd does not provide leverage to infringe on the
rights of the members of the militia/citizenry.
This is why I think the interesting part of this debate will be
about the words "infringe" and, perhaps, "militia" rather than the
collective/individual thing.
And yet the Aristotelean within me says that, if there is no
practical difference between your collective right of a group to
assemble and my individual rights of individuals to assemble, then
I really don't care what you call it.
Sure, but to make a sweeping claim, as Gilbert did above, that
collective rights do not exist is a political position dressed up
in the guise of a logical argument. It assumes its conclusion and
ignores the evidence. The fact that I don't even need to go to the
3rd Amendment to find a counter example tells me that those who
make that argument haven't thought it through very carefully.
The same semantic contortions are required to hold that there are
no positive rights. (see the 6th amendment)
Wayne,
Three people standing in a loose cluster listening to a concert
in the park.
Sorry, but your 3 concert goers have a shared purpose (listening to
the concert).
I guess you would make a good lawyer.
That's a pretty nasty accusation.=/;^P
You would undoubtedly be able to stand in front of the Supremes
and defend DC's gun ban.
I guess if it was my job to do so, I could.
Do you somehow think that lawyers believe every argument they make?
Do you not recognize the importance of advocacy in our judicial
system?
Neu Mejican|3.21.08 @ 10:36AM|#
MikeP,
Just for the sake of completeness.
I guess if SCOTUS decided that the 2nd is about a collective right
of people to keep and bear arms as a militia, they might rule that
a claim to that right comes with a responsibility to participate
actively in the militia somehow.
DC's ban wouldn't be justified by that ruling.
And if they claimed that responsibility was part of the right, they
would be defining, at least in part, what "infringe" means.
Requirements to demonstrate your participation in the militia
explicitly might be allowed by such a ruling.
|3.21.08 @ 10:54AM|#
"Do you somehow think that lawyers believe every argument they
make? Do you not recognize the importance of advocacy in our
judicial system?"
They can not possibly believe every argument they make. I most
assuredly do recognize the importance of advocacy.
Neu Mejican|3.21.08 @ 11:00AM|#
wayne,
Good to hear.
The way your accusation was worded it sounded like you were trying
to claim the ability to advocate for a position was somehow a
character flaw.
|3.21.08 @ 11:01AM|#
"Sorry, but your 3 concert goers have a shared purpose
(listening to the concert). "
I presume that is NM-speak for, "they are assembling"?
"I guess if SCOTUS decided that the 2nd is about a collective right
of people to keep and bear arms as a militia, they might rule that
a claim to that right comes with a responsibility to participate
actively in the militia somehow. "
I will grant that the Supremes can "rule" any way they like,
however disconnected from reality, but to suggest that 2A implies a
responsibility to participate in a militia is absurd. Temper that
opinion with prior SCOTUS rulings such as upholding UofM's
affirmative action based on a "state need for diversity" and I will
admit that SCOTUS might decide anything.
With your reasoning ability, maybe you ought to be on SCOTUS, NM.
Your suggested interpretation of 2A above (in effect instituting a
milirary draft) would fit right in with their other absurd
rulings.
|3.21.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Sure, but to make a sweeping claim, as Gilbert did above,
that collective rights do not exist is a political position dressed
up in the guise of a logical argument. It assumes its conclusion
and ignores the evidence. The fact that I don't even need to go to
the 3rd Amendment to find a counter example tells me that those who
make that argument haven't thought it through very
carefully.
Surely you realize that the belief that collective rights do not
exist is a position derived from natural rights, and that the words
found in the Bill of Rights cannot provide evidence for collective
rights because that document is an attempt to describe preexisting
rights of individuals secured by government.
Discussions in the Constitution of rights that involve collections
of people do not provide counterexamples against the position that
all rights are individual: Rights exist entirely independently of
the Constitution. Furthermore, it takes absolutely zero effort to
read the rights secured by the Bill of Rights as individual rights.
I would argue that it is a semantic contortion to think that the
mention of rights when describing collective acts makes the rights
collective.
The same semantic contortions are required to hold that there
are no positive rights. (see the 6th amendment)
I think it was a tragic error to use 'right' instead of a better
word such as 'entitlement', but the due process rights guaranteed
by the Bill of Rights are not the same as the natural rights
secured by the Bill of Rights. This requires no "semantic
contortions." It merely requires recognizing two definitions of
'right'.
MikeMangum|3.21.08 @ 12:53PM|#
"'There are no "collective" rights to begin with.'
That is a political position, not an axiom."
Seriously? I guess that's why corporations had to be regarded as
"juristic persons" to be granted rights that are granted to
individuals, right?
Rights *only* apply to individuals, not a collective. That's why
The Federal and State governments were granted powers, not
rights.
Gilbert Martin|3.21.08 @ 2:00PM|#
"Rights *only* apply to individuals, not a collective. That's
why The Federal and State governments were granted powers, not
rights."
Exactly
NM said:
"You do not have a right to join my group or any particular
assemble unless they agree to your inclusion. The group has a right
to set the conditions for membership."
And who says any "assembly" equals some club with membership
rules?
The more appropriate conceot is a crowd.
I can join the crowd or "assembly" to listen to a concert in the
park and that has nothing to do with joining any particular
"club"
While people in official groups can and do orgainize demonstrations
and protests of things all the time, assemblies of people also can
and do occur that are not the result of any self-identified group
with membership requirements.
If two or more people show up at the county courthouse to protest
something you can label those people an "assenmbly" or a "crowd"
but that doesn't change the individual nature of the right or the
independent decision of each one to show up there.
Neu Mejican|3.21.08 @ 8:03PM|#
I will start by saying that MikeP is the only person who has
made a substantial argument in response to my comments.
The existence of "natural rights" itself, however, is a political
position rather than axiomatic.
About this...
I would argue that it is a semantic contortion to think that
the mention of rights when describing collective acts makes the
rights collective.
The right described is nothing more nor less than the right to
engage in that collective act. Since the act requires a collective
to take place, it is a collective right. Nothing dangerous about
that concept.
Another avenue for thinking about this topic would be to consider
whether families have rights as families or not.
I think it was a tragic error to use 'right' instead of a
better word such as 'entitlement', but the due process rights
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not the same as the natural
rights secured by the Bill of Rights. This requires no "semantic
contortions." It merely requires recognizing two definitions of
'right'.
This is much the same as your point about the practical differences
between our positions. If you want to call positive rights
"entitlements" I have no problem with that...it doesn't substantial
change the underlying concept.
Gilbert
And who says any "assembly" equals some club with membership
rules?
Not I.
Gilbert Martin|3.21.08 @ 11:47PM|#
"I will start by saying that MikeP is the only person who has
made a substantial argument in response to my comments."
Which means nothing since YOU are not the judge of what is or isn't
"substantial"
Gilbert Martin|3.22.08 @ 12:05PM|#
"Yes I am.
Prove me wrong."
LOL
I don't have to prove that you're not - YOU have to prove that you
are - and you can't do it.
And while you're at it - consider this scenario about the right to
assemble:
Citizen A is concerned about Issue #1 so he makes a sign and goes
down to the public square to demonstrate.
Citizen B is concerned about Issue #2 so he makes a sign and goes
down to the public square to demonstrate.
Citizen C is concerned about Issue #1 but he has the opposite view
of it than Citizen A. He also makes a sign and goes down to the
public square to demonstrate.
All three of them are on the public square holding their signs.
Since there are three of them, that makes it an assembly.
None of the three knows or cares anything about the other two. None
of the three has any authority to require the other two to leave or
stay. There was no pre-existing coordination between any of them to
show up at the same place at the same time.
Try and explain what "collective" decision necessary to create this
assembly.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Gilbert,
You have a strange sense of the concept of an assembly.
I do think it sounds like two of your three individuals would count
as an assembly. A&C came to the same place at the same time to
speak about the same issue...they have a shared purpose, even if
they have different goals.
B is just an individual who happens to be involved in a similar
activity in the area.
No need for him to worry about his right to assembly. He has a
right to free speech, right to petition the government, etc...
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Gilbert,
To clarify.
If A&C decide to engage in a dialog, then they would be an
assembly. If they just ignore each other, they aren't.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 12:37PM|#
BTW,
I don't have to prove that you're not - YOU have to prove that
you are - and you can't do it.
My proof:
I claim that "MikeP is the only person who has made a substantial
argument in response to my comments."
Since this is obviously an assertion of my opinion about a topic
(how substantial the responses to my comment were), and I have the
most direct knowledge about what my opinion is, I am the best judge
as to whether I think an argument is a substantial response or
not.
Not really a challenge.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 12:46PM|#
So back to the assembly scenario you present.
What I see as the logic flaw is that you want to define the
assembly from the outside.
You see some people standing together, and you want to call them an
assembly.
The human brain is great at that kind of thinking (the root of
racism, for instance).
But you (or the government) don't get to decide if they are an
assembly. They do. That is an important aspect of the right to
assembly.
An assembly is not defined simply by proximity. Assemblies have
functional coherence...a common purpose that is internally
defined.
It really isn't that difficult of a concept.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 1:04PM|#
For instance,
H&R seems like it might, perhaps, qualify as an example of an
assembly...and proximity is not an element.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"Since this is obviously an assertion of my opinion about a
topic (how substantial the responses to my comment were), and I
have the most direct knowledge about what my opinion is, I am the
best judge as to whether I think an argument is a substantial
response or not."
That is circular nonsense.
The proof that is required isn't what your opinion is or isn't -
the proof that is required is that your opinion is, in fact,
correct. That you cannot do.
"B is just an individual who happens to be involved in a similar
activity in the area.
No need for him to worry about his right to assembly. He has a
right to free speech, right to petition the government,
etc..."
It is not a fact that B is not covered by right to assemble and has
to rely on freedom of speech - that is merely your contention.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.08 @ 1:28PM|#
"You see some people standing together, and you want to call
them an assembly."
And you simply want to deny that they are.
"But you (or the government) don't get to decide if they are an
assembly."
"You don't get to decide that a group of people standing together
isn't an assembly.
"An assembly is not defined simply by proximity. Assemblies have
functional coherence...a common purpose that is internally
defined."
The right is to ASSEMBLE - not to be an ASSEMBLY. The assembly is
the merely the aggregate result of each individual's choice to show
up.
If only person happens to show up for a demonstration or 1,000
happen to show up each one of them is still exercising his right to
assemble and is covered by that right.
If only one person show up, his right to assemble is not diminshed
just because no one else decided to exercise their right to
assemble in that particular place at that particular time.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Gilbert,
See definition of assemble posted above.
Words have meaning.
Really, they do.
You don't get to decide that a group of people standing
together isn't an assembly.
That is consistent with my assertion that their status as an
assembly results from their shared purpose and is an intrinsic to
the concept of an assembly.
So we agree on something.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:21PM|#
The proof that is required isn't what your opinion is or
isn't - the proof that is required is that your opinion is, in
fact, correct. That you cannot do.
Required by whom?
You get to state opinions as if they are facts but I don't?
It is not a fact that B is not covered by right to assemble and
has to rely on freedom of speech - that is merely your
contention.
No.
It is logically required by the semantics of the word
"assemble."
Since you are making the assertion to the contrary, please derive
for me the coherent argument about his solo-assembling that doesn't
require a radical redefinition of the key term "assemble."
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Tip
Your conclusion (e.g., "there are no collective rights") can not be
presented as an axiom ("it is a given that...").
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:32PM|#
If only [one] person happens to show up for a
demonstration or 1,000 happen to show up each one of them is still
exercising his right to assemble and is covered by that
right.
The solo individual who WANTS to assemble has been foiled in his
attempt to exercise his right by the lack of anyone to assemble
with.
Sad, but not a demonstration that he is assembling.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.08 @ 2:44PM|#
"That is consistent with my assertion that their status as an
assembly results from their shared purpose and is an intrinsic to
the concept of an assembly. "
Nope - any crowd is an "assembly".
"No.
It is logically required by the semantics of the word
"assemble."
Not on your say so.
"The solo individual who WANTS to assemble has been foiled in his
attempt to exercise his right by the lack of anyone to assemble
with.
Sad, but not a demonstration that he is assembling."
Not on your say so.
"The words "coherent" and "argument" have meanings too."
And you're no more the judge of what constitutes either one than
you are of what is "substantive"
And that about does it.
I'm not wasting any more of my time on you so.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Gilbert, clearly, you are an intellectual chicken shit.
Your argument summarized.
Yes it is.
Not it isn't.
Twit.
Neu Mejican|3.22.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Pardon the typos..
That is
"No it isn't"
and
"To wit"
Not on your say so.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245