Obama bans social security recipents from owning guns??

[Dead Duck]

Preventing
Ha - That's a good one.










Oh - You were serious?


I too saw Minority Report.

I'm re posting this because as I read this thread, the "Minority Report" keeps coming to mind.

May I remind you - IT WAS JUST A MOVIE.
And it is against my country's constitution. If you like living under dictator's rule, MOVE.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If you're so upset at the state of affairs here in the USA, Dave, feel free to go elsewhere.

If I were to say what I am thinking I could rest assured of being banned. As a descendant of a Revolutionary War veteran, you have permanently earned my deepest and most heart-felt hatred.

If you position on the Constitution had any merit, there are a few issues you need to address:

1. The primary argument against the adoption of the Bill of Rights is that the government had no authority to engage in any of the prohibited activities.

2. Why was Jefferson so agonized about the Louisiana Purchase on constitutional grounds if he had the authority to do anything not specifically prohibited?

3. Most significant, given that there was basically nothing prohibited to the federal government in the body of the Constitution proper, why in the universe was there any need for a Constitution since by your standard, the federal government would have had virtually unlimited power? That is about like atheists forming a religious group to establish a standard way to believe in nothing.

 

[actaeon277]

Are you suggesting that doctors and hospitals have not been coached or instructed by their own lawyers regarding the burden of proof when it comes to an involuntary hospitalization? I suspect that burden is far higher than you believe.



Delegating one's finances was simply one criterion, not THE criterion for establishing an incapacity. It's a red flag in the paperwork, and I suspect much more investigation goes into the decision. I doubt anyone has had their guns confiscated SOLELY because they let their spouse handle the checkbook! As a former HS teacher, I've had students who were functionally illiterate and innumerate (can't do math), but no one is suggesting those people are somehow incapable of safely handling a firearm.



True, it's not possible to stop someone from shouting out questionable things, but we can do our best to keep firearms out of the hands of people who are clearly a danger to themselves or others! Will that stop the determined psychopath from getting a firearm? No, but I would argue that is due to flaws in NICS reporting procedures and loopholes such as no checks whatsoever during gun shows.



Doctors may also import their own politics/beliefs into their judgments regarding abortion or contraception, or treating someone of another race or religion! However, no one seems to care about those possible infringements!



That is one interpretation. The other is that the government is free to do anything that is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Personally, I believe in the latter interpretation, as it should be clear to everyone that the Founding Fathers could not envision every possible issue and address them, item by item, in the Constitution. I have no doubt they knew technology would change over time, and that trying to establish limits on the unknown would be impossible!

If you're so upset at the state of affairs here in the USA, Dave, feel free to go elsewhere.

1) Free to do anything not prohibited.... Wrong. Study some history. Study some history of the Constitution. Maybe*** just study. Your interpretation only seems to have been in the last century, and it keeps growing. But it's not how it was initially.

2) Could not envision.... No they couldn't. That's why there is a mechanism to create changes, additions, subtractions to the Constitution. They're called Amendments. So important, they created 10 of them soon after the Constitution was ratified. You may argue it's "difficult" to make the changes. Intentionally so.
If you're going to start ignoring the "Supreme Law of the Land", or at least picking and choosing, then people can feel free to start ignoring ALL the laws of the land.

3) Item by item.... yes I do expect them to. The States are supposed to address the majority of the issues. Not the Feds.

4) Feel free to leave..... Yes, you can leave anytime you wish. There are no guards keeping you in, only trying to keep some people out. If you wish to "fundamentally change the country" then apparently you are the one that needs to leave.

 

[david890]

As a descendant of a Revolutionary War veteran...

My ancestors arrived in 1642. Yours? I have several RW vet ancestors, as well as several Civil War vets and KIAs. My Mother had a cousin who was killed 1 month after landing in Normandy.

Of course, your ancestral claims and mine have no relevance on the topic at hand.

Hated by Dave? Oh, noes!!!!!

 

[Papadaca]

[point blank the democrats want to illegalize guns and make this country like England........ I gaurentee it would make crime rates sky rocket.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My ancestors arrived in 1642. Yours? I have several RW vet ancestors, as well as several Civil War vets and KIAs. My Mother had a cousin who was killed 1 month after landing in Normandy.

Of course, your ancestral claims and mine have no relevance on the topic at hand.

Hated by Dave? Oh, noes!!!!!

I see. You are one of those who would squander the inheritance his forebears gave so much to provide. Truly shameful. Far more shameful than what I suspected. You should know better.

 

[jamil]

It seems we've gone beyond arguing points. Either david890's assertion about the constitution is correct or it isn't. His whole argument depends on that. Either the government has the legal authority to do what he's suggesting or it doesn't. No one's family heritage has anything to do with that.

Shaming him for a belief propagated for a hundred years isn't fruitful. If he deserves any shame, it is if he is furthering that idea for intellectually dishonest reasons. I have no reason to believe that it is anything but a heart felt belief, reasoned, of course, with the help of other people who believe the same thing. In other words, I have no doubt that he really believes that ****. So many people do. It's become so popular they teach that **** in school now. Anyway, I think it's much more fruitful to keep the emphasis on the points made.

So to david890, where's the evidence that the government is free to do anything that the constitution doesn't expressly forbid? Why did the framers create a way to change it if they intended that it could just "evolve" with popular culture? Why did Obama say our Constitution sucks? Why did Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg say it sucks?

Basically their arguments have been that the constitution sucks because, rather than explicitly stating the authorities the government doesn't have, it is based on negative rights; our constitution enumerates powers that the government has, and explicitly states that powers not given to the federal government are remanded to the states and the people. They hate the constitution as it is because it does not grant them the authority to create positive rights, that is, to oblige people's actions.

The constitution does not allow government to take away a right without due process. If you read it differently, please show chapter and verse where it grants the government the power to take away rights without due process.

 

[Hohn]

I don't get SSA. I get mine straight from my old state where I was hurt on the job. Unfortunately the state is IL.

..and unlike the pensions of public employees, it's not clear if disability is a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT in the State Constitution?

 

[Hohn]

Is that listed in the criteria, or is it a pre-supposition scare tactic?
Those possibly affected, are those who cannot handle their affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease." Now, that gives a wide latitude, but generally speaking, the policy is sound. However, given the gravity of the penalty, could only support it, if an exhaustive battery of tests were conducted to prove a person incapable of responsibly having firearm. I think the bar should be very high.

My concern is that one can be adjudicated to have "marked subnormal intelligence" for purely political reasons.

Perhaps you believe in Creation. Perhaps you think AGW is preposterous groupthink among scientists at best, global green energy can game at best. Perhaps you "vote against your own interests."

We all know there are many people who in the bureacracy that would be all too willing to adjudicate someone as unfit to own a firearm just by virtue of having voted Republican.


As long as there is a JURY trial required for someone to be found incompetent, I'm OK with having rights infringed if seemed incompetent. But only if such determination is made upon the granting of the broadest possible consideration of due process rights. Full substantive due process, too just like many other Amendments get.

 

[Hohn]

Since the topic of administrative law is a key discussion point of this thread, let me draw your attention to this excellent book on my reading list:

Is Administrative Law Unlawful?: Philip Hamburger: 9780226116594: Amazon.com: Books

Some presentations by the author:
Is Administrative Law Unlawful? | Cato Institute
https://youtu.be/8Wu3lw77t0E