This time of year every news organizations has them – summer interns who are eager to “do something” – but usually not qualified to actually step in. The perfect solution: take advantage of their athletic skills, as did the networks during yesterday’s release of the Supreme Court decisions…
Brian K, for the record lefvoter and I do not agree on many things, although on many we do.What lefvoter is telling you here is absolutely correct. Changes in laws (and even Constitutional interpretations) happen all the time (and sometimes 180 degree changes). You speak with about the Constitution as if it were a static document with static interpretations, but clearly it isn’t, as history has amply shown. Oh, sure, there are some Supreme Court justices who sometimes talk as if the Constitution is static, but what really matters is what the consensus opinions of all the justices are in actual case decisions, not the individual ideas of one or two justices.You cite some Constitutional provisions as if they are absolutes when in fact they are not. One reason for that is that the Constitution and its language require interpretation, and not everybody interprets it the same way, even within SCOTUS at any particular time, or even SCOTUS as a whole over time.An example is your mention of the 2nd Amendment. First of all, you do not mention it in its entirety, which is 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. A long-settled rule of statutory and Constitutional interpretation is that courts are and should be loath to interpret any provision in such a way as to ignore or render meaningless any language, unless that is absolutely necessary. So right off the bat what you have paraphrased could be limited in some way by the preliminary clause about militias.Second, the words themselves must be interpreted. For example, exactly what does keep and bear mean? And EXACTLY what does arms mean? And might those meanings in one context be different in another context?Atom bombs arguably are arms, but the 2nd Amendment sure as hell does not give a civilian the right to have access to them, much less keep and bear them. If atom bombs are NOT arms under the 2nd Amendment, then what other weapons also are NOT arms? And what weapons are?At this point I don’t plan on getting into any more discussion of this here, but will leave that to lefvoter, who, I will say, is on very solid ground.
Exactly. Enacting new laws will not deter muderrers, as muderr has been illegal for some time to my knowledge. As for the Anarchist stuff, I can’t really say I subscribe to any specific political ideology. I place great value on my privacy and independence. CT Govt is/has legislated us to the couch. It’s seeping into every aspect of life for those of us who enjoy getting outside. There are restrictions on riding a mountain bike on tax-funded land (not usually enforced, but it’s there.)just as an example. The same goes for trail maintenance or building. Jail time and/or heavy fines for making a trail safer! I cannot stress this enough, I feel that it starts with parenting. My parents raised me to take responsibility for my actions. I hurt myself pretty good on two separate occasions, once on private property years ago and once on tax-funded land more recently. I did not sue anyone or complain about anything that led to the injuries. Nobody forced me to be there and I understood full well that they were risky activities.
Cut the caftan to just above your knees so you can kick your legs in the water.
Whether you’re looking for the perfect beach coverup or for a fabulous tunic for those
sassy jeans, you have unlimited choices. The virtual me can carry a trendy little bag (that the
flesh and blood me cannot afford) and wear some of those hip, big sunglasses.
I do not even know how I ended up here, but I thnought thhis post was great.
I do not know who you are but certainly you are going to a
famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!