Took More Time Than I Thought
Per this:
In the aftermath of the shooting last month of Councilman James E. Davis, the City Council is pushing ahead with several changes in New York City’s gun-control laws that would make the laws, already among the toughest in the nation, more restrictive.
The Council will hold a committee hearing on Sept. 12 on at least half a dozen bills that, if approved, would seek not only to restrict how gun makers and dealers conduct business in New York City but also to counter a growing movement across the nation to roll back gun-control measures.
The proposals include holding gun makers, dealers and importers liable for damages if their weapons are used to kill or injure people in the city, as well as prohibiting gun dealers from selling more than one firearm to the same person within 90 days. Another proposal would require gun owners in the city to obtain liability insurance.
August 27th, 2003 at 7:04 am
If state and local laws trump federal ones, even up to and including the constitution, as you’ve argued in other threads, then what’s your beef with this?
August 27th, 2003 at 9:03 am
Except the constitution, remember 🙂
August 27th, 2003 at 9:55 am
Weren’t you just arguing in my church/state thread that the federal constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion need not necessarily apply to the states? How is this any different?
August 27th, 2003 at 10:10 am
Weren’t you just arguing in my church/state thread that the federal constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion need not necessarily apply to the states?
No, i argued that state law could not be discounted or ignored (and you pointed out AL’s constitution forbade Moore’s act and i agreed). But I am in agreement on the issue that state law can’t trump the constitution. In the alabama case, there was no instance of congress making a law respecting the establishment of religion. So, moore was not violating the first amendment, literally speaking of course. Case law is a different matter entirely. Case law has been wrong before (separate but equal, for example).
August 27th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
So by your interpretation of the first amendment, a state could legally pass a law making all religious exercises illegal (provided that state’s constitution permitted it), and this would in no way violate the federal constitution?
August 27th, 2003 at 1:58 pm
And while you’re reading amendments literally, you mind telling me how that “well-regulated” clause of the second amendment DOESN’T give states the right to regulate such things? What exactly does that “well-regulated” stuff mean, anyway?
August 27th, 2003 at 2:40 pm
First, the easy one: well-regulated refers to properly trained and equipped. And if you’d like to read the proper interpretation, go here.
So by your interpretation of the first amendment, a state could legally pass a law making all religious exercises illegal (provided that state’s constitution permitted it), and this would in no way violate the federal constitution?
This one is more difficult and i have personally struggled with this issue. On the surface, yes due to the letter of the law and all of that. However, application of the principles of the first to other things is also appropriate. In this case applying the first to the judiciary, not just congress. And you misspoke, i did not interpret i stated matter of factly what it said. I have had mixed positions on this AL thing from the onset, mostly due to my own poor research.
Of course a state couldn’t pass such a law. However, the question is: does posting the monument really establish a religion? I really think not at this point. Should it have been been placed there? No.
August 27th, 2003 at 7:30 pm
well-regulated refers to properly trained and equipped.
That’s somebody’s interpretation. That’s not what it says. Apparently interpretations beyond the literal meaning are important. 🙂
And you misspoke, i did not interpret i stated matter of factly what it said.
But you interpreted what that means. You chose to stick to a mindset that all that matters is what it says, and where subsequent precedents are irrelevant. Which isn’t necessarily invalid, but there are a lot of icky implications to such a worldview.
For example, the constitution doesn’t explicitly guarantee due process either. Parts of the constitution have been interpreted to mean that, even though it doesn’t explicitly say that.
If you stuck with just the literal meanings of everything in the constitution, you wouldn’t have a terribly useful document. And the second amendment might not even hold, since it’s not even coherently phrased.
However, the question is: does posting the monument really establish a religion? I really think not at this point.
Gray area again. Does it establish a religion? No. Does it give the appearance of preference toward a particular religion? Absolutely. Precedent (which you reject) has been set that states that giving the appearance of preference results in de facto establishment, which is verboten.
It’s not at all unreasonable for a Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist to walk into the courthouse for their trial, see an essentially Christian monument officially displayed, and worry from the get-go that they aren’t going to get a fair shake. (Never mind Moore, who has said as much outright). This should help to illustrate not only why it shouldn’t have been placed there (which you concede), but also why it doesn’t belong there (which I’m not sure you concede).
How’d we get from gun control to the monument? 🙂 Ah, nevermind.
August 27th, 2003 at 7:52 pm
How’d we get from gun control to the monument? 🙂 Ah, nevermind.
Dunno.
well-regulated refers to properly trained and equipped.
Yes, as interpreted by the people who wrote the amendment.
August 28th, 2003 at 6:57 pm
well-regulated refers to properly trained and equipped.
Yes, as interpreted by the people who wrote the amendment.
I get it. So it’s okay to go with the authors’ interpretation of the Second Amendment, but not to go with their interpretation of the first?
What did they have to say about the first? See below (emphasis mine in all cases).
To the Baptist Churches on Neal’s Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself.
James Madison, 1811
(Get that kids? Government funding of religion is a no-no)
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.
James Madison, 1819
(Total separation, huh? Who’da thunk?)
I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others.
James Madison, 1832
(Government neutrality? No way!)
You know the Jefferson “wall of separation” quote well enough, I have no need to repeat it.
By declaring the Founders’ interpretations to be admissible, as you’ve done with the Second Amendment, I can by extension apply their interpretations to the First. And it’s clear from the writings of Jefferson and Madison that in the First Amendment’s religion clauses, they intended for total separation of church and state — not just the “disestablishment” of religion.
For plenty more Madison quotes, go here.
August 28th, 2003 at 8:24 pm
I agree. At first, i bought the literal interprettion but since researching, have changed my mind. How many more times you want me to say that? 🙂
August 28th, 2003 at 11:07 pm
Well, you conceded that in the specific case of Alabama, Moore is wrong, but you’ve still been throwing around the Congress verbage as proof that the clause doesn’t really apply to the states in general, or that the states can somehow decide to trump the federal constitution on that count.
So I was confused. I didn’t understand that you were conceding that point also. Sorry to rail on you unnecessarily. 🙂