I made the following comment:
- Laci The DogFeb 13, 2012 02:04 PM
I have made a post about the English Bill of Rights.
Maybe you should familiarise yourself better before you pretend to argue it.
I would also suggest that you not confuse the doctrine of self-defence with national defence. At common law, deadly force was discourages.
In fact, its use could render one the aggressor and lead to legal prosecution.
The problem is, LegalEagle, you are using a shotgun argument.
You arguments are like tossing spaghetti on hoping that something might stick, but nothing does since you are obviously unclear on this topic.
If you know anything about US Jurisprudence, then you know full well that Marbury says "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"
You are saying that the most important clause is "is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction."
You are violating the rules of US Constitutional interpretation as set forth by Marbury in your proposed construction,
Laci The DogFeb 13, 2012 02:15 PMI should add that Marbury's rule of statutory construction reinforces my position that the proeme is indeed important.
If it provides the purpose for which the Second Amendment was adopted, then it it highly important to its interpretation.
You would render the "proeme" mere surplusage" by making the presumption that it has no effect.
That violates Marbury.
And if Marbury is no longer valid, then Heller is no longer valid since Marbury is where the concept of Judicial review comes from.
Judicial review which invalidates popularly passed laws by local citizenry, especially those taxed without representation, were grievances in the Declaration of Independence.
So much for the Second Amendment being the tool of Liberty--you have led it to be the exact tyranny complained of by the colonials.
legaleagle_45Feb 13, 2012 03:09 PM
Marburys Rules of Construction:Problem, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a very important case in Supreme Court jurisprudence. One doesn't need to go very far to find that out. The first result in my google search was:
"1) "The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people not therein expressed. For (not to mention the liberal and beneficial manner of Construction which we have a right to) the plain, natural, and obvious meaning of the charter is, to grant and confirm certain Rights, Privileges, and Immunities to all his Majesty's subjects who then did or ever should inhabit that tract of country in America usually called Virginia, according to the Descriptions and Boundaries of the original Charters, not before otherwise appropriated or disposed of by His Majesty's Ancestors." - George Mason, July 1773, Extracts From The Virginia Charters, With Some Remarks On Them Made In The Year 1773"
Thus the rights are construed liberally...
Laci wrote: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"
Yep, and you seem to believe the 2nd is without effect, because you can not tell us what the 2nd protects. You say it is obsolete and "irrelevant since 1792", which directly contradicts this presumption.
You are not too good at this Lacy...
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaa little further down in the results one finds:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._MadisonMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise ...
I made a post about this case earlier on in response to:Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief Summary
www.lawnix.com/cases/marbury-madison.htmlFacts, issue, holding, and rule of law in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief Summary.
An anonymous idiot, said:The problem, LegalEagle45, is that this case is the first one studied in Law School Constitutional Law classes for precisely the reasons I gave in the aforementioned post:
You mention Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), quite a bit.
And for good reason. But anon missed this post: An Interesting Factoid. He also doesn't have an understanding of the fundamentals of Constitutional law.
Marbury is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional", a process called judicial review. The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.LegalEagle, while sounding as if he knows something about the law demonstrates that he does not have one of the extreme basics of US Constitutional law and Supreme Court Jurisprudence--knowledge of the case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Since it defined judicial review, it also provided guidelines for that review--the most important of which is the one I keep mentioning--that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect".
According to Marbury, One cannot presume that any language in the Constitution is mere surplusage--is entirely without meaning.
Sorta sad statement about the US educational system that you have to get your civics lessons from a Brit!
That is the rough equivalent of not knowing what a stop sign looks like or which side of the road you drive on if you are able to drive a car.
Perhaps, this is why he was consistently making my argument for me through his ignorance.
Yes, LegalEagle, you just made a goal--
FOR THE OTHER TEAM
And you can't stop doing it.
While this is the most egregious of his mistakes, if one is at all familiar with the law, legal practise, and legal method, one would see that LegalEagle45 consistently got it wrong from citing cases and authorities which supported my case if they didn't just fail to refute it.
I should also add, as a landmark supreme court case, Marbury is actual legal precedent and LegalEagle45's George Mason quote is pure blather.
As I said after reading his first response--thanks for making my case for me.
But in this instance, LegalEagle45, you really fucked it.
You fucked it royally.
Whenever I hear someone parrot "individual right, individual right, individual right", it reminds me of this:
Substitute "individual right" for "Brawndo".
