TexasCHLforum.com

I do a lot of talking to people about the political issues of today. I have learned that the best way to move average, honest, decent, people from the bad thinking of left wing politicians (which is usually all they have heard on the news media) is with logical truth of camparison. To be honest w/ you many of those logical truths have come from many of you, & the vast majority of them have come from folks like you. Example: the last one that came from the board was during the back & forth posts on open carry. The short, correct, & to the point statement of logical truth that summed it all up was, "the states w/ open carry don't have all the problems we were putting forth." (Forgot now who but GOOD JOB.)
Every time you have seen me post an: "OOOH I am gonna use that" you can know you have given me one of those irrefutable logical truths. I am not infinately wise. I do not have the right answer on the tip of my tongue as some do. I really do practice my answers, argument, & reasoning for the Qs that come up in public conversation.
So!! Lets get some logical truths concerning Strict interpretation of the Constitution. It has been said by the left that the Constitution is a "living, evolving, interpretable document." When I have been told this, here are a few irrefutable reasons of logical truth that I use. Give me some more & use mine. I don't copy write anything
1. No other written document in the US is considered alive, evolving, changing, or interpretable.
2. Your Morgage contract is not evolving. It is static & says what means & means what it says. Payments cannot change w/o written amendment. Due dates cannot change w/o written amendment. They cannot repo w/o stated cause....
3. Your union contract w/ management is not evolving. Neither side can offer some new mutation of meaning. Change must be by amendment & in writing.
4. Your written contract w/ a builder is not an evolving document. It means what is says & is binding to both sides.
5. The reason man started "writing down" agreements is so they WOULD be static & every one could go back & verify what was agreed on.
Offer some more & use these.
LT

longtooth wrote:..."the states w/ open carry don't have all the problems we were putting forth." (Forgot now who but GOOD JOB.)

Thanks.

These two statements will rock a lot of boats:

Rights are inherent and inalienable. They are endowed by God, or nature if you prefer. No legitimate government can violate them.

Governments derive their power from the consent of the people.

Both are right there in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but most people don't seem to understand them.

- Jim

good job again.

seamusTX wrote:

longtooth wrote:..."the states w/ open carry don't have all the problems we were putting forth." (Forgot now who but GOOD JOB.)

Thanks.

These two statements will rock a lot of boats:

Rights are inherent and inalienable. They are endowed by God, or nature if you prefer. No legitimate government can violate them.

Governments derive their power from the consent of the people.

Both are right there in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, but most people don't seem to understand them.

- Jim

Unfortunately, the Declaration of Independance (DoI) doesn't hold water in a court. You have to use the Constitution of These United States for your citations. The DoI can be used to help clarify the Constitution, but be careful.

The DoI was written by "radicals" that wanted to overthrow government, whereas the Constitution was written by an almost completely different group of men who were trying to establish a government (mostly because the Articles of Confederation failed, but also because the anarchy they experienced with the severely limited governing bodies & their capabilities under those articles).

It's far simpler to work with the Constitution as meaning what it says, but by not allowing it to be a living document at the same time (by allowing amendments to it, when properly passed & ratified) we limit our ability to modify based on changes in reality.

Interpreting the Constitution is a tricky thing. This is where many of the disputes come from. For example, the 2nd amendment has two clauses but most folks only remember the second. The first clause is the one that gets you in trouble, though, because the question becomes what did the founders mean by 'a well regulated militia' in that clause? Furthermore, I believe we have to look at the intent of the Founders, not solely at what the document itself says. The problem is that English is a living language, not a static language, so we have to try and determine what the words meant in the usage of the age in which they were written, not by what they mean now or what we want them to mean.

I happen to agree that the 2A means exactly what it says, and that the founders intent was that the government not be able to regulate or ban weapons of any sort. At the same time, I can see where some folks feel a need to have some limitations on the use & carry of them.

For example, I'd like to see a proficiency test before you can open carry, just like we have before you can concealed carry. My kids don't touch any firearms until they can recite & explain the 4 rules. I don't know that that is a good idea to enshrine them in the law, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to include it as a measure of negligence (e.g. - did the shooter violate one or more of the 4 rules while attempting to pop the BG).

But back to the topic on this thread, it's really very simple:

Legally binding documents aren't changeable depending on the political climate.

The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.

- Jim[/quote]



But back to the topic on this thread, it's really very simple:

Legally binding documents aren't changeable depending on the political climate.

Absolutely.

The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.[/quote]

Gotta disagree. When politicians start "going outside the Constitution" to decide what it means one of the places they "went" was to international law. Can't have that!!!

Very good reminder: The DoI has no court authority. Correct. What really torques me about that is a "personal letter" making a statement about a wall of seperation has huge authority in courts today. Yet the DoI has none.

longtooth wrote:

Mithras61 wrote:The problem is that the language and usage of the language in which the document was written has changed from when the document was written, so we have to look outside that document to clarify what is meant by some of the words and phrases.

Gotta disagree. When politicians start "going outside the Constitution" to decide what it means one of the places they "went" was to international law. Can't have that!!!

Very good reminder: The DoI has no court authority. Correct. What really torques me about that is a "personal letter" making a statement about a wall of seperation has huge authority in courts today. Yet the DoI has none.

International Law SHOULD be irrelevant (it has been ruled to not be, but our courts should uphold our laws based on our laws & the debates & discussions surrounding their passage). When you go outside the law as written, the only admissable sources of information should be the discussion and debates surrounding the law, not some other bull like what some other country thought on the subject (unless that is also part of the discussion and debate surrounding the passage of the law).

I don't care what the politicians do about going outside the Constitution in their arguments & public statements, so long as the Courts stick to the actual document and only source external documents as they are needed to clarify the law as written.

The root issue, though, is the same: the language has changed, and common usage has changed, so how are we (200+ years later) to interpret the meaning if we look solely at the Constitution and not at the surrounding debates & discussions?

One of my online acquaintances had an interesting comment on the wording of the Second Amendment:

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.

He wrote, the first clause could just as well say, "A firm mattress being necessary to a good night's sleep." The core of the Amendment is "the right ... shall not be infringed."

Some words used in 18th-century documents have changed, but those haven't.

The Declaration of Independence is not a law; but it is a statement of political philosophy which we deviate from at our peril.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: The Declaration of Independence is not a law; but it is a statement of political philosophy which we deviate from at our peril.

- Jim

Excellent. So true.

seamusTX wrote:One of my online acquaintances had an interesting comment on the wording of the Second Amendment:

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.

He wrote, the first clause could just as well say, "A firm matress being necessary to a good night's sleep." The core of the Amendment is "the right ... shall not be infringed."

As I said above, there's not much wiggle room in the 2nd Amendment. It means what it says. My argument is for other parts of the Constitution as the root law of the land.

seamusTX wrote: The Declaration of Independence is not a law; but it is a statement of political philosophy which we deviate from at our peril.

- Jim

I agree. You prove my point about outside documents being necessary to clarify the intent of the Founders.

Yes, when folks say that the Constitution is a living, changing document, what they really want to mean is that they can interpret it however they see fit. It is more of a changeable or amendable document than a changing one, as changes must come via the rules outlined within it.

Most politicians, lobby groups, and others attempting to promulgate this nonsense do so incessantly, with the aim of getting the public to believe what they know to be false. Others just recite it, because they are too ignorant to know better and to lazy to verify. The end goal is to subvert the very document that limits their authority, as they believe their authority should not be limited.

I love my country, but if there were a place that was more free, I'd consider moving there. As it stands, we have no place to go and must speak out against the erosion of our freedoms. Make no mistake about it, the Left is not our only danger. Those with political ideologies differing from the Left, can still be a danger to freedom, although often from different angles. There are likely only a handful of individuals, at best, in DC who aren't a danger to our freedom.

I could move on to a rant about compromise, but I'll save that for a later date

Welcome aboard YoungGun. It aint no rant if its true.