Yes, you have been wrong about what’s in it.[/quote]
Oh yeah? Which part was I wrong about?
Well, historical novels don’t do straight history well - that isn’t their point. I don’t read historical novels for history.
Tehcnicality, you say? What technicality exactly? Looking forward to hearing this.
Also, you are aware that the decision was unanimous, and authored by Justice McReynolds, one of the most conservative members of the Court and one of the “four horsemen”, famous for striking down pieces of FDR’s New Deal?
Let’s hear about this technicality. I am all ears.
Oh yeah? What page? I am looking through the PDf of it right now. Let’s see where the author explains this technicality as “straight history”.
I never said that, of course (what is the straw man count up to now, anyway?) - I just said I didn’t have an interest in learning history from this book. Surely you can appreciate the difference?
No, it is an explicit statement that this book is intended to appeal to a certain adoloscent way of thinking and excitability.
See what I mean? What the hell are you talking about? You can infer some of the dumbest stuff from statements. I’m serious - it’s serial. Where do you come up with this stuff?
It being out of print is not an excuse that I can’t get my hands on it - it’s a signal no one wants the damn book.
But, rest assured, I have downloaded the PDF and I am headed straight to the “straight history” sections re: 1934 Act, etc. so I can see this objective, unbiased recitation of history you have guaranteed me. I will report back after I get some time to review.
What have I said is in it that is not? Adoloscent revenge fantasies about murdering ATFers?
[quote]Thank you for mentioning that.
First of all, you might want to explore the semantics of the word “practically” which I was careful to employ in my post.[/quote]
Oh goodie - everyone look: big bad Push is backing up like traffic.
They weren’t unconstitutional.
Whether they are vile or not is irrelevant - the only question is could the states pass such “vile” laws? And the answer is yes.
Those laws weren’t unconstitutional, Push. That’s the fact. Doesn’t matter what you “meant” - the laws you claim were “unconstitutional” weren’t. Consider the laws prohibiting blacks from owning guns - the federal and (relevant) state constitutions said blacks weren’t even people. Ugly as that is, at the time the laws said that, they weren’t unconstitutional.
Sorry, Push, I’m not your mom, though you appear to think that I am, given how much I have to clean up after you around here. The information is out there (I even cited to the Kentucky case in another thread), but I can’t do all the work for you.
You want to speak intelligently on this issue and appear informed before positing an opinion? Go read up. I am not going to do research for you.
Sure, Push. I know you are, but what am I, etc., etc. Well done. Your pride has ruined another thread.
They didn’t, Einstein. Doesn’t matter what your “assertion” is.
And now we see the real problem - you’re a kind of postmodernist. Words means whatever you want them to mean, and you think you get to define History and Truth any way you want regardless of what happened.
Yes, sure thing, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, etc. Get new material.
Nope, I just rely on stuff I read, I can be rational that way - instead of magically “assserting” things to be true that never happened.
As is, it was a good debate while it lasted. Ah well. Disappointing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ahh yes…once again…one muddies up a good debate IF one disagrees with the Duke of Condescension, the Knight of all that is Faithful and True, the Supreme Arbiter of Historical Facts.[/quote]
Nope, I just rely on stuff I read, I can be rational that way - instead of magically “assserting” things to be true that never happened.
As is, it was a good debate while it lasted. Ah well. Disappointing. [/quote]
On the contrary, your emotions come across very clearly.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]pushharder wrote:Ahh yes…once again…one muddies up a good debate IF one disagrees with the Duke of Condescension, the Knight of all that is Faithful and True, the Supreme Arbiter of Historical Facts.[/quote]Nope, I just rely on stuff I read, I can be rational that way - instead of magically “assserting” things to be true that never happened.
As is, it was a good debate while it lasted. Ah well. Disappointing. [/quote]
On the contrary, your emotions come across very clearly.
It takes two to tango.[/quote]Now you stay outta this, it was jist gittin good.
Give me a break. The entire thing is one big cathartic revenge fantasy over the perceived outrages of the the ATF.
Well, you could, but I was specifically asking about this “technicality”, not generally. Let’s see what you have to say on that.
[quote]The District Court ruling was overturned on a direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court (see United States v. Miller). [u]No brief was filed on behalf of the defendants, and the defendants themselves did not appear before the Supreme Court. Miller himself had been murdered one month prior to the Supreme Court’s decision[/u]. No evidence that such a firearm was “ordinary military equipment” had been presented at the trial court (apparently because the case had been thrown outÃ?¢??at the defendants’ requestÃ?¢??before evidence could be presented), although two Supreme Court justices at the time had been United States Army officers during World War I and may have had personal knowledge of the use of such weapons in combat, and the Supreme Court indicated it could not take judicial notice of such a contention.
The Supreme Court reversed the District Court and held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not violative of the Second Amendment’s restriction and therefore was not unconstitutional.
Bottom line? No defendant? No legal counsel for the defendant? No argument for the District Court’s finding the NFA unconstitutional?
What happens in court, TB, when one of the parties fails to appear? Tell me.[/quote]
Let’s ride:
-First, the Supreme Court, in this instance, asked defendant’s counsel if he wanted an extension…he declined and said decide the case on the government’s brief (he said he didn’t have the funds to travel to DC).
-Second, the District Court’s finding would have been sent up as part of the record for the Supreme Court to consider.
-Third, the Supreme Court had before it a legal question, and it went ahead and decided the legal question, handed down an opinion, and issued binding precedent.
Which means, no, the case itself was not decided on a technicality for failing to appear (which would have been, for example, a dismissal, and would have no binding effect in terms of a decision on the merits re: precedent for other federal courts). The Supreme Court (unanimously) undertook consideration of the trial court’s findings and ruled on the issue re: the Second Amendment.
Not a technicality, even in the World Where Push Makes Up The Meaning Of Words.
Ok, so you don’t know. Fair enough, the PDF is OCR-searchable - I will find references to the 1934 Act myself. Should be very interesting.
Thanks, Oprah.
No, but certainly true for this book.
It has nothing to do with prudence, because I didn’t claim anything about the book I didn’t know. That said, I have searched for the 1934 Act, and the first bit that pops up has made me realize why you’re so misinformed.
No, they weren’t, and here is why you’re making an ass of yourself. When you say “you’re losing credibility” by making a claim, you’re leveling a charge that I am saying something so ludicrous as to be outside of commonsense, logic or history. That’s foolish, because I am telling you exactly what the historical record is on these laws. You don’t have a leg to stand on, but you try and pretend I’m making the outlandish claim. You try this move a lot, and it is painfully transparent.
These laws - laws prohibiting blacks from owning guns - were not unconstitutional prior to the Civil War. That is a matter of fact and historical record. The federal Constitution did not render them so prior to the Civil War, and they existed in states that restricted the rights of blacks in lots of ways, including prohibiting blacks from being citizens.
That is an ugly, awful history - but these laws were not unconstitutional at the time they were in force (unless a given state constitution changed to prohibit these kinds of laws). For a law to violate the constitution, it must violate the language of some clause of the controlling constitution. They didn’t.
This is precisely why we had to amend the federal Constitution to abolish slavery - despite the outrageous treatment of blacks prior to the Civil War, their status of property was, in fact, constitutional. Thus the amendment. If you’re right, we would have never needed to amend the Constitution to abolish slavery.
Give it a rest.
And, these “vile” laws (the ones I referenced) did not violate their respective constitutions.
[quote]History fail by the self proclaimed history meister. Many of those laws were in effect post Civil War and post 14th Amendment when blacks WERE constitutionally and legally “people.” Some of those laws were in effect in the 20th century.
KNOW your history or GTFO.[/quote]
Is that right? Here we go again.
If these laws were in effect post-Civil War, they would have been unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment prohibited these kinds violations of Equal Protection based on race (this was the primary focus of the 14th Amendment’s protections, of course, to make sure states didn’t use state laws to thwart abolition with race-based restrictions) and also the incorporation of the Second Amendment via the 14th Amendment to states that previously could pass such laws.
Prior to the Civil War, they were not unconstitutional, for the reasons above. After the Civil War, if they exitsed, they were unconstitutional, because the constitution changed.
Get it? Reconstruction Amendments happened. True story. And, no, there is no “alternative theory” that really, really, no, really, really the Second Amendment applied to the state laws prohibiting blacks from having guns prior to the Civil War. You may want to try one of these Postmodern I Am Certain This Is What Happened Even Though Something Else Happened, but you can’t. Prior to the Civil War, laws prohibiting blacks were not unconstitutional. Period. Full stop.
Yours, because you proudly think you’ve got it all figured out, and when someone defies this pride and says, “wait a minute, that ain’t what happened, so stop saying it did” (like me), you can’t concede that you simply don’t know what you think and boast you know.
Where did I say laws against blacks owning guns was always antebellum? I said these laws were not unconstitutional prior to the Civil War. And I am right.
And me saying “I’m right” isn’t “haughtiness” or “arrogance” - it is merely recognizing that, yes, on some issues, especially ones that have a historical predicate, there is a right answer and there is a wrong one, and I am right to say that, no, state laws prohibiting blacks from having guns before the Civil War were not unconstitutional.
Spend the time actually reading up on all the things that you pretend to know but don’t. It make these debates a lot better.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804[/quote]
TJ to Abigail Adams? Abigail Adams!
Push, to see the effulgence of invective that TJ had for the courts only shows him to foam at the mouth on the subject; my point that he had a pathologic hatred for them is now displayed in full.
Let’s point out that all of TJ’s observations on the the Constitution, quoted by push, have been molded by this hatred of a judiciary which held its seats for life. And, note please, TJ was not present at the Convention, and was not informed in a timely fashion of its proceedings. Madison sent only two packets to Paris; and remember, Madison loved a separate and independent judiciary (by design and by its defense in numerous numbers of the Federalist.)
TJ expresses a little concern about which house should consent to the appointment of federal judges, but: TJ liked the set up. He says so. Right there. In a letter to Madison.
Oh, sure, this may be one of those situations were men change their mind; but under what principle did TJ become so rabid an enemy of the courts? Why, it was a political and not a principled objection alone.
Here, I will quote at some length from Joseph J. Ellis woefully inadequate biography, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.
(pp264-269)
“In 1804, as part of an unsuccessful effort to resume friendly relations with John and Abigail Adams, he explained to her that ‘the one act of Mr. Adams’ life’ that had genuinely upset him and struck him ‘as personally unkind’ was the appointment of Federalists to the federal courts. ‘They were among my most ardent political enemies,’ he complained, and from whom no faithful cooperation could ever be expected.'”
(TJ had a particular animus toward John Marshall, whom Tj knew could best him in most debates and write as well to boot.)
When, in push’s quotations, TJ speaks of the Constitution in regard to the courts, TJ argues as an outsider: he was not author to the design and felt that a Federalist court system imposed limits on his vision for the country: that vision was that of 1776, not that of 1787.
[From Ellis:] “…And the simple truth is that the original American revolutionaries had not envisioned a national judiciary at all. * At times Jefferson seemed to believe that to be true to the original 'spirit of ‘76’ all federal courts should be abolished completely and the judicial decision left to the states. But such thoughts did not emerge out of specific legal arguments so much as a grander sense of ‘sweeping away’ the institutional residue that had built up since the Revolution.”
(* Here I disagree: it is hard to imagine that John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, among many others, had not envisoned a national judiciary of some type.)
Was TJ accepting of the judicial system in 1787, and suddenly peevish, squirrelly, mendacious, after achieving power? Would he brook no opposition from a contrarily constituted Court–the position of a despot? Or did he see that the Constitution was disposable to the Greater Goal, the democratic revolution of 1776?
I am a skeptic of the self-assured visionary; they call motives “ulterior” for a reason.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804[/quote]
TJ to Abigail Adams? Abigail Adams!
Push, to see the effulgence of invective that TJ had for the courts only shows him to foam at the mouth on the subject; my point that he had a pathologic hatred for them is now displayed in full.
Let’s point out that all of TJ’s observations on the the Constitution, quoted by push, have been molded by this hatred of a judiciary which held its seats for life. And, note please, TJ was not present at the Convention, and was not informed in a timely fashion of its proceedings. Madison sent only two packets to Paris; and remember, Madison loved a separate and independent judiciary (by design and by its defense in numerous numbers of the Federalist.)
TJ expresses a little concern about which house should consent to the appointment of federal judges, but: TJ liked the set up. He says so. Right there. In a letter to Madison.
Oh, sure, this may be one of those situations were men change their mind; but under what principle did TJ become so rabid an enemy of the courts? Why, it was a political and not a principled objection alone.
Here, I will quote at some length from Joseph J. Ellis woefully inadequate biography, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson.
(pp264-269)
“In 1804, as part of an unsuccessful effort to resume friendly relations with John and Abigail Adams, he explained to her that ‘the one act of Mr. Adams’ life’ that had genuinely upset him and struck him ‘as personally unkind’ was the appointment of Federalists to the federal courts. ‘They were among my most ardent political enemies,’ he complained, and from whom no faithful cooperation could ever be expected.'”
(TJ had a particular animus toward John Marshall, whom Tj knew could best him in most debates and write as well to boot.)
When, in push’s quotations, TJ speaks of the Constitution in regard to the courts, TJ argues as an outsider: he was not author to the design and felt that a Federalist court system imposed limits on his vision for the country: that vision was that of 1776, not that of 1787.
[From Ellis:] “…And the simple truth is that the original American revolutionaries had not envisioned a national judiciary at all. * At times Jefferson seemed to believe that to be true to the original 'spirit of ‘76’ all federal courts should be abolished completely and the judicial decision left to the states. But such thoughts did not emerge out of specific legal arguments so much as a grander sense of ‘sweeping away’ the institutional residue that had built up since the Revolution.”
(* Here I disagree: it is hard to imagine that John Adams, Samuel Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, among many others, had not envisoned a national judiciary of some type.)
Was TJ accepting of the judicial system in 1787, and suddenly peevish, squirrelly, mendacious, after achieving power? Would he brook no opposition from a contrarily constituted Court–the position of a despot? Or did he see that the Constitution was disposable to the Greater Goal, the democratic revolution of 1776?
I am a skeptic of the self-assured visionary; they call motives “ulterior” for a reason.
[/quote]
Hey Doc, I offered no commentary (see Mufasa’s post). If one wants to present a thesis that Thomas Jefferson was a raving lunatic who deserves no respect and no study, fine, have at it.
[/quote]
Hey, that’s not my thesis, and not Ellis’. But if you want to say that’s what I said, I couldn’t argue, could I? And here I thought I was studying the quotes, the context, the history, the motivations…
[quote]
I have more quotes coming from those other than Jefferson. When I’m done an honest man will have to admit there is validity on both sides.
Now TB stated, like George Jepsen in CT, that the issue was “settled” a long time ago but I disagree. I DO feel the pro nullification debate was sullied and severely damaged by the victory of the North in the War Between the States but it does NOT need to be inextricably tied to secession. It should not be. Period. To do so is to proclaim guilt by association. No need for this. Let it be argued on its merits.
You will see no secession talk from me on this subject.[/quote]
But what about poor Abigail Adams?
Surely you see the chain: 1776…1787…1801 election…1804 and a little letter to Abigail Adams…and a lot of anti-court rhetoric of ambivalent motivation.
(BTW, my part in the discussion was to read with you Madison’s Virginia Resolution, Report, and his own intent regarding both nullification and secession…I did not evoke or interpose The Civil War, Jefferson, Jackson, Jepsen or my grandfather’s mustache.)