OT: So Hillary wants to make DC the 51st state

[Buzzards Roost]

I don't give 2 shits about Hillary or Trump but I think its stupid that DC isn't a state and has no representation in Congress.

No, we don't need another state with only 600,000 people and two senators. A BETTER IDEA: Put all of DC except the govt. buildings back in the state from which it was carved. Maryland. Then no one would be unrepresented and no new group would be over represented.

The US Senate is the only elected body allowed to violate "1 man 1 vote". And only because it is in the constitution. In the past each SC county had 2 State Senators but that went away because it violated Federal1 man 1 vote rules. The Federal Govt should fix it. It was placed in the constitution to placate small states.

 

[DClemsonTiger]

This entire thread is chock full of people speaking about things they clearly have limited knowledge of.

 

[Walhalla Wildman]

That would be 2 more senate seats for the left.

Cool, maybe Marion Barry can be elected to one of the seats.

(I know he's dead but I bet if his name was on the ballot, he'd win)

 

[Willence]

I love that there are so many conlaw scholars on the board.

Constitution - no interpretation needed.

we don't even need the judicial branch right?

They are to enforce the law and decide arguments by using what the law says. They are not to extend or expand legal precedence. That's how we ended up with Dred Scott and the slaughterhouse cases.

 

[PAWrocka]

This seems fair. It's hilarious how diferent the political views are in MD once you get outside 695.

aint that the truth.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

They are to enforce the law and decide arguments by using what the law says. They are not to extend or expand legal precedence. That's how we ended up with Dred Scott and the slaughterhouse cases.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

Oh you are wrong here in so many ways. The Constitution is not a living document. It is a legal document. It is the basis for governance of a nation. What part do you miss here? Within this legal, governing document is a process for amendment. We have used this process 27 times in attempts to better our nation. This is how it is supposed to work. The Constitution meant what it meant when they authored and ratified it. It didn't mean what you want it to say now based on your political agenda. How is that so hard to understand? If you want it to say something else, go make a damn argument about what you want to change. Then, win the argument and set about the already outlined process of amending the Constitution. The issue is you can't do that so you'd rather re-invent what it says, turn it into a living, emotional document and then go about turning everything upside down. Doesn't work that way. If you could win the argument to start with, then you could alter the document. It would change and still be a legal, governing document.

This process isn't designed to stop change or stop progress. It's designed to force us as a nation to change...to evolve into a more perfect union. It is a great thing. Just look at all the ways we have worked as a people to create a more just and equal nation with the previous 27 amendments to the Constitution. It's a beautiful process and it facilitates growth in a nation. It isn't meant to bring about division. That's what the present process on the right and left is doing. That's why our Founding Fathers were so wise in their vision for this nation. It would all work so much better if we'd just follow it!

This living document bullshit is a really pathetic argument to make. It is nothing but that... and we don't interpret the Constitution. We follow it and we are governed by it. There's nothing there to interpret. To liberals, interpret is a way of saying they can change the meaning by twisting words without actually having to win a damn argument. Not happening here. Sell stupid somewhere else my friend.

Quick question for you: do you own a gun? Are you part of a " well – regulated militia?"

 

[CLT-Tiger]

Quick question for you: do you own a gun? Are you part of a " well – regulated militia?"

The right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Why is this so hard for liberals to grasp? Oh yeah, they don't like it so they argue the whole living, breathing idiocy of a legal contract. Try calling your mortgage company with that argument.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

The right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Why is this so hard for liberals?

Because that is not the text idiot.

"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."

You very conveniently left out the qualifier for that right.

The point is, if you look at the exact wording of the Constitution, pretty much every single person in this country would be disqualified from owning a gun. You could make the argument that the military counts as a well regulated militia, so military members would be allowed to own guns. INTERPRETATION is why you're allowed to own a gun, not the exact wording.

 

[CLT-Tiger]

Because that is not the text idiot.

"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."

You very conveniently left out the qualifier for that right.

The point is, if you look at the exact wording of the Constitution, pretty much every single person in this country would be disqualified from owning a gun. You could make the argument that the military counts as a well regulated militia, so military members would be allowed to own guns. INTERPRETATION is why you're allowed to own a gun, not the exact wording.

That is the text you jackass, it's possible to write sentences with multiple meaning significant points. The right of the people, the "the people" part means they weren't talking about only a militia.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

If the constitution is a legal contract, the founders were some terrible lawyers.

 

[appalachiatiger]

if

I don't give 2 shits about Hillary or Trump but I think its stupid that DC isn't a state and has no representation in Congress.

dc cant be a state

it was set aside to be the location of the federal government to do its work.

it CANT be in any state due to this thing called power.

most americans favor as much political and economical power as close to it as possible to maximize efficiency for the middle class

for some reason, the democrats, and now a group of many of the republicans who have sold out to the idea

all favor centralizing all the power and wealth in a few of the largest cities araound the world to be distributed snd governement by the few cities, and they will work together.

the problem with that philosophy is giving up our freedoms and giving up most of our wealth, they will steal as much as they can until we have had enough or crumble from within like Rome.

So go ahead and misinterpret the Constitution in exchange for your wealth and freedom.

If you are part of this elite who is stealing wealth, and some of you may not even understand you have sold out.

then shame on you

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

That is the text you jackass, it's possible to write sentences with multiple meaning significant points. The right of the people, the "the people" part means they weren't talking about only a militia.

Aw, I see you have a hard time with sentence structure. Poor guy. I hate to tell you, but the commas were not separating a list. "A well regulated militia," " being necessary to the security of the state," and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not 3 separate items.

 

[iceheart08]

The right of the PEOPLE, to keep and bear arms, shall not be INFRINGED. Why is this so hard for liberals to grasp? Oh yeah, they don't like it so they argue the whole living, breathing idiocy of a legal contract. Try calling your mortgage company with that argument.

im curious, who are the parties to the contract? also, what consideration was provided to each party to make the contract enforceable? finally, legally, contracts cant extend into perpetuity, its called the rule against perpetuity. So, if the constitution was a contract, its legal force would have ended 99 years after its signing.

but, you probably know a lot about contract law right, and can clearly distinguish a constitution from a contract?

go back to your chain emails. you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[iceheart08]

That is the text you jackass, it's possible to write sentences with multiple meaning significant points. The right of the people, the "the people" part means they weren't talking about only a militia.

im also curious, the entire first part of that sentence, do you just ignore it?

im also curious what "multiple meaning significant points" means?

 

[iceheart08]

They are to enforce the law and decide arguments by using what the law says. They are not to extend or expand legal precedence. That's how we ended up with Dred Scott and the slaughterhouse cases.

sorry. the executive branch's function is to "enforce the law"

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

im also curious, the entire first part of that sentence, do you just ignore it?

im also curious what "multiple meaning significant points" means?

He thinks it's a list. Separated by invisible "or"s.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

sorry. the executive branch's function is to "enforce the law"

Amazing how many people on here consider themselves constitutionalists and don't actually understand the constitution.

 

[SpillerTime]

Because that is not the text idiot.

"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."

You very conveniently left out the qualifier for that right.

The point is, if you look at the exact wording of the Constitution, pretty much every single person in this country would be disqualified from owning a gun. You could make the argument that the military counts as a well regulated militia, so military members would be allowed to own guns. INTERPRETATION is why you're allowed to own a gun, not the exact wording.

It doesn't say an "active" militia. Also, it the says right of the people not "the right of militia members. "

If "people" cannot own guns then how would it be possible to muster a militia?

Seems pretty straightforward.

 

[Willence]

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

To state the law and decide legal controversies, yes it is. It is not the job of a judge to interpret the Constitution looking for hidden and new meanings to the wording. That's why we have an amendment process. Notice that no one rebuts what I said about that cause you can't. It is what it and it isn't what it isn't.

Quick question for you: do you own a gun? Are you part of a " well – regulated militia?"

You love this one. And this is the problem... you read this the way you want to rather than for what it says. It's a continuing thought which is one of the reasons we have a comma. It doesn't mean that the right to bear arms is only for a militia.

Also, to answer your question: No, I do not own a gun.

Aw, I see you have a hard time with sentence structure. Poor guy. I hate to tell you, but the commas were not separating a list. "A well regulated militia," " being necessary to the security of the state," and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not 3 separate items.

Again, you're reading it how you want to and not for what it says. You're parsing and trying to make this something it isn't.

sorry. the executive branch's function is to "enforce the law"

You are correct. I was taking a nap when I typed my last message. I wrote it wrong so my bad there!

Amazing how many people on here consider themselves constitutionalists and don't actually understand the constitution.

You would be chief among them sir. I read the document for what it says and understand the process it outlines for making changes. That's all you really need to do. I'm not looking for new meanings. You like guns so I will use that. I believe if you feel strongly that we should scale back some of what it means to "bear arms," then you should go make your argument and start the amendment process. If you think assault weapons should be excluded or that limits should be placed on this protected right, amend the document to say that. There's a process and it's hard but it is something you could do. That's the right way to change things.

 

[tigerGUY]

This Clinton Trump POTUS race has got to be every news channel programming director's wet dream. So much stupid to report.

Very doubtful. The media hasn't reported facts and truth in over 15 years.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

To state the law and decide legal controversies, yes it is. It is not the job of a judge to interpret the Constitution looking for hidden and new meanings to the wording. That's why we have an amendment process. Notice that no one rebuts what I said about that cause you can't. It is what it and it isn't what it isn't.

I'm not even going to start an argument about the constitutional amendment process because that is far too nuanced of an issue for TI. But FYI, your amendment process works both ways: don't like how a judge has interpreted the law (a necessary step to state the law and apply it to a set of facts)? That's what we have an amendment process for.

 

[CLT-Tiger]

im also curious, the entire first part of that sentence, do you just ignore it?

im also curious what "multiple meaning significant points" means?

How about this, who do you think "We the people" refer to? Now when they used "people" vs "militia" do you think they just screwed up or perhaps the language was intentionally used to encompass all of us?

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

To state the law and decide legal controversies, yes it is. It is not the job of a judge to interpret the Constitution looking for hidden and new meanings to the wording. That's why we have an amendment process. Notice that no one rebuts what I said about that cause you can't. It is what it and it isn't what it isn't.



You love this one. And this is the problem... you read this the way you want to rather than for what it says. It's a continuing thought which is one of the reasons we have a comma. It doesn't mean that the right to bear arms is only for a militia.

Also, to answer your question: No, I do not own a gun.



Again, you're reading it how you want to and not for what it says. You're parsing and trying to make this something it isn't.



You are correct. I was taking a nap when I typed my last message. I wrote it wrong so my bad there!



You would be chief among them sir. I read the document for what it says and understand the process it outlines for making changes. That's all you really need to do. I'm not looking for new meanings. You like guns so I will use that. I believe if you feel strongly that we should scale back some of what it means to "bear arms," then you should go make your argument and start the amendment process. If you think assault weapons should be excluded or that limits should be placed on this protected right, amend the document to say that. There's a process and it's hard but it is something you could do. That's the right way to change things.

I am reading it the way it says it in the Constitution, I am not interpreting it anyway other than for the exact words that are written. And while I would like to see some gun ownership scale back, we don't actually need to have an amendment to the constitution. The second amendment, if read as it should, does not prohibit the government from banning the use of particular guns. Which is how we had an assault rifle ban until 2004.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

It doesn't say an "active" militia. Also, it the says right of the people not "the right of militia members. "

If "people" cannot own guns then how would it be possible to muster a militia?

Seems pretty straightforward.

So were you previously in a militia then? One that is inactive? Or are you refering to some fictional militia that doesn't exist (but POTENTIALLY could)?

People COULD own guns. If in a militia. Pretty simple. You are part of a militia, then you get threright to own a gun.

Seems pretty straighforward.

 

[CLT-Tiger]

Aw, I see you have a hard time with sentence structure. Poor guy. I hate to tell you, but the commas were not separating a list. "A well regulated militia," " being necessary to the security of the state," and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not 3 separate items.

So wording matters, right? We the "people"? You typically don't change the meaning of words throughout documents. Ya know, it can confuse the liberal reader.

 

[andcam]

You can believe whatever it is you want of course. But to say this is not a political move with a design on increasing Democratic representation in the Congress would be to ignore all reality. Unfortunately we've reached the point where almost anything that is done is about politics not about what's best for our country.

Yes. But if DC was a bunch of old, white men conservatives someone would be on Fox yapping about taxation without representation. Don't act innocent. Plain and simple, these folks are taxed at the federal level without representation. Gosh, Hannity's head would explode over this if DC looked like Alabama demographics wise.

 

[andcam]

i have yet to hear anything that miss clinton has done thats added value to the united states

as a first lady?

as a senator?

and as a secretary?

all i know is all of the fukk ups.

can anyone who supports that moron and thief come up with anything of value she has to offer?

She got a lot of respect as a Senator as a very hard worker who would try and find consensus with the Republicans. I recall McCain, Alexander and I think the former lady Senator from Texas all saying really good things about her.

 

[SpillerTime]

So were you previously in a militia then? One that is inactive? Or are you refering to some fictional militia that doesn't exist (but POTENTIALLY could)?

People COULD own guns. If in a militia. Pretty simple. You are part of a militia, then you get threright to own a gun.

Seems pretty straighforward.

Wow. You're trying sooooo hard.

Per Merriam-Webster:
Militia : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Well Whaddaya know, I am in a militia!

 

[andcam]

Very doubtful. The media hasn't reported facts and truth in over 15 years.

Just curious, are you including Fox when you say "the media" or do they have a special exemption. BTW I have been watching CNN lately and they always have a panel with even numbers of conservatives and liberals. I also thought HRC and Bernie got very tough questions in their debate on CNN. For the most part, if anything, I think CNN goes to great length to give both sides.

 

[tigerGUY]

Because that is not the text idiot.

"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."

You very conveniently left out the qualifier for that right.

The point is, if you look at the exact wording of the Constitution, pretty much every single person in this country would be disqualified from owning a gun. You could make the argument that the military counts as a well regulated militia, so military members would be allowed to own guns. INTERPRETATION is why you're allowed to own a gun, not the exact wording.

Liberal a little?

 

[iceheart08]

Wow. You're trying sooooo hard.

Per Merriam-Webster:
Militia : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Well Whaddaya know, I am in a militia!

so i guess the definition of not trying very hard, in your case, is selectively choosing a definition of the word militia that serves your agenda? heres the whole thing. of the 4 definitions here, only 1 serves your purpose, the rest invalidate your argument.

Simple Definition of militia

• : a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Full Definition of Militia

• a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency'
• b : a body of citizens organized for military service
• 2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

So wording matters, right? We the "people"? You typically don't change the meaning of words throughout documents. Ya know, it can confuse the liberal reader.

How did it change?

 

[Willence]

I'm not even going to start an argument about the constitutional amendment process because that is far too nuanced of an issue for TI. But FYI, your amendment process works both ways: don't like how a judge has interpreted the law (a necessary step to state the law and apply it to a set of facts)? That's what we have an amendment process for.

Judges are not there to interpret law. That's where you go off the rails unfortunately. This is not a human process. The whole point of rule of law is to be outside of human emotions and interpretation. I'm just not sure how that gets missed so often.

Yes. But if DC was a bunch of old, white men conservatives someone would be on Fox yapping about taxation without representation. Don't act innocent. Plain and simple, these folks are taxed at the federal level without representation. Gosh, Hannity's head would explode over this if DC looked like Alabama demographics wise.

DC was set up the way it is for a reason. I couldn't care less about what race the people in DC are. That's obviously something you care about because you've been conditioned to always bring up race when arguing with anyone who is a conservative. DC isn't a state, shouldn't be a state and was never intended to be a state. I'm not acting innocent, I believe this to be the case on principle and it doesn't matter what the demographics of the area are. It's a shame it matters to you. People are people... period.

 

[tigerGUY]

Just curious, are you including Fox when you say "the media" or do they have a special exemption. BTW I have been watching CNN lately and they always have a panel with even numbers of conservatives and liberals. I also thought HRC and Bernie got very tough questions in their debate on CNN. For the most part, if anything, I think CNN goes to great length to give both sides.

Ergo, the great divide in this country. To answer about FOX...I don't listen to National news media. Period. I read multiple small player media or International media for info.

I'm still wondering wtf Hillary hasn't been indicted for her personal server used in State business? For that matter, the last statemnt could be asked about multiple events prior to White Water. Power and $$$ can hide events, rewrite history and control !liberal press.

 

[iceheart08]

Judges are not there to interpret law. That's where you go off the rails unfortunately. This is not a human process. The whole point of rule of law is to be outside of human emotions and interpretation. I'm just not sure how that gets missed so often.

the notion that any given law can cover EVERY SINGLE set of facts in the universe, the notion that you are espousing here, is incredibly naive, and not at all close to how our legal system actually works.

DC was set up the way it is for a reason. I couldn't care less about what race the people in DC are. That's obviously something you care about because you've been conditioned to always bring up race when arguing with anyone who is a conservative. DC isn't a state, shouldn't be a state and was never intended to be a state. I'm not acting innocent, I believe this to be the case on principle and it doesn't matter what the demographics of the area are. It's a shame it matters to you. People are people... period.

regardless of race, the only reason DC isnt a state at the moment is because its overwhelmingly a single party. Im not naive, Ds would be fighting to stop it from being a state if it were filled with Rs, but its pretty clear that taxation without representation was one of the catalysts for the founding of our great nation. its outrageous that the people of washington DC (where I was born and raised) pay into a system that doesnt allow them to have any say as to how those taxes are spent. absolutely outrageous. i dont understand how anyone could disagree with that.

 

[Willence]

the notion that any given law can cover EVERY SINGLE set of facts in the universe, the notion that you are espousing here, is incredibly naive, and not at all close to how our legal system actually works.




regardless of race, the only reason DC isnt a state at the moment is because its overwhelmingly a single party. Im not naive, Ds would be fighting to stop it from being a state if it were filled with Rs, but its pretty clear that taxation without representation was one of the catalysts for the founding of our great nation. its outrageous that the people of washington DC (where I was born and raised) pay into a system that doesnt allow them to have any say as to how those taxes are spent. absolutely outrageous. i dont understand how anyone could disagree with that.

I would argue that city is overrepresented. Too much power there already. It is not meant to be a state. Most of the metro is annexed into a state. We could blow up our central government and remove all its power. I would be for that.

 

[B. Winstonworth]

the notion that any given law can cover EVERY SINGLE set of facts in the universe, the notion that you are espousing here, is incredibly naive, and not at all close to how our legal system actually works.

Nah, he's right. We wasted our time going to law school. Legal issues are just a matter of finding the correct law.

 

[iceheart08]

I would argue that city is overrepresented. Too much power there already. It is not meant to be a state. Most of the metro is annexed into a state. We could blow up our central government and remove all its power. I would be for that.

i dont get the sense that you've ever been to DC. the actual residents of DC arent the lobbyists and congresspeople that you so eagerly bemoan. The actual people of DC, and their interests, are far from "overrepresented". Their own budget requires congressional approval. They pass laws by overwhelming majorities through ballot measures, and congressional republicans refuse to allow any of DC'S OWN TAX MONEY to go towards implementing those laws. Its an outrageous situation.

the continued refusal to grant DC voting representation in the senate and house, and the continued control over DCs local affairs by elected officials (republicans) from other states flies DIRECTLY IN THE FACE of "conservative" principles.

 

[Willence]

i dont get the sense that you've ever been to DC. the actual residents of DC arent the lobbyists and congresspeople that you so eagerly bemoan. The actual people of DC, and their interests, are far from "overrepresented". Their own budget requires congressional approval. They pass laws by overwhelming majorities through ballot measures, and congressional republicans refuse to allow any of DC'S OWN TAX MONEY to go towards implementing those laws. Its an outrageous situation.

the continued refusal to grant DC voting representation in the senate and house, and the continued control over DCs local affairs by elected officials (republicans) from other states flies DIRECTLY IN THE FACE of "conservative" principles.

I grew up in DC area. I do think the central government should limit its meddling in the affairs of the city. I would agree there. That way DC residents can have more opportunities to elect drug dealers to do things.