monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Quote:

Israel’s Parliament passed a provocative law late Monday that would retroactively legalize Jewish settlements on privately owned Palestinian land, pressing ahead with a statement of right-wing assertiveness despite the likelihood that the country’s high court will nullify the legislation.

It was a defining — opponents said frightening — moment in Israel’s ever-more-distant relations with Palestinians and amid fading hopes of ending decades of conflict through a two-state solution.

While polls consistently show that most Israelis still support two states, their leaders and the reality of what is happening on the ground are consistently heading in the opposite direction...

NYT
That's so cool. The next step in the evolution of Netanyahu's Israel will likely to be to gather up all the Palestinians, take all their privately owned lands and goods, and then dump the men, women and children into a huge meat grinder to help feed the real humans of Israel and Palestine. Of course these completely moral acts are presently illegal so retroactively making them legal is the obviously further moral act required.

As I've said repeatedly, it does apply to individuals; it says "the right of the people", not the right of the militia. It just happens that it is the only amendment that has an institution (the "Militia") associated with it.

"Well regulated" could mean that the militia itself was trained and subject to law, or it could refer to the condition of the firearms themselves, kept clean and in working condition.

The amendment is poorly written

and the document does not spell that out in detail.

And I'll state again, individual self defense is not mentioned

that wasn't the purpose of the militia. It was deemed — explicitly — necessary for state security, not individual safety.

I'm not saying that courts are wrong to derive an extension which covers self-defense

but that is not what the amendment literally says.

My point is that if social conditions warrant a change in interpretation the court can change accomplish that with a 5-4 vote.

giujohn wrote:

A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So does that mean that only people who are well-educated should be allowed to keep and read books?

No, but it does open up the possibility, remote as it may be, that books deemed to have no educational value might not be protected. Litigation heaven!

Someone stole the cheater's superbowl jersey!

LOL!

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18629266/tom-brady-game-worn-jersey-goes-missing-super-bowl-li-win

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/tom-brady-missing-super-bowl-jersey-shows-ebay/story?id=45299006

hightor wrote:

"Well regulated" could mean that the militia itself was trained and subject to law, or it could refer to the condition of the firearms themselves, kept clean and in working condition.

Well-regulated meant that the militia in question had trained to a sufficient degree that they could fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

It does not have any meaning other than that exact definition.

hightor wrote:

The amendment is poorly written

It is written just fine. The Left just doesn't like what it says.

hightor wrote:

and the document does not spell that out in detail.

The document does not bother to define any of the other words that it uses either.

hightor wrote:

And I'll state again, individual self defense is not mentioned

Courts had been explicitly mentioning self defense as part of the right ever since the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

hightor wrote:

that wasn't the purpose of the militia. It was deemed — explicitly — necessary for state security, not individual safety.

Yes. That is the purpose of the militia. But this does not change that people have the right to use their military weapons for individual self defense.

hightor wrote:

I'm not saying that courts are wrong to derive an extension which covers self-defense

Indeed they are not wrong to do so.

hightor wrote:

but that is not what the amendment literally says.

What it literally says is that the government is required to maintain a militia in every state (the first half), and the general populace has the right to have modern military weapons (the second half).

hightor wrote:

My point is that if social conditions warrant a change in interpretation the court can change accomplish that with a 5-4 vote.

In other words it is vital to keep the Republicans in power. The Democrats are coming for us, and the only thing we can do to save ourselves is vote for Republicans.

hightor wrote:

giujohn wrote:

A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
So does that mean that only people who are well-educated should be allowed to keep and read books?

No, but it does open up the possibility, remote as it may be, that books deemed to have no educational value might not be protected. Litigation heaven!

Taking that example back to the Second Amendment, that would mean that the guns that we most have the right to have are modern military weapons that would be of use when serving in a modern militia.

By the way though, even though the First Amendment is all about protecting political speech, and the courts provide political speech the greatest degree of protection, the courts still provide pornography a certain degree of protection as well.

You should read "The Framers Coup" its a tale about the writing of the Constitution and how the framers (in their own written words) actually saw it .They COUNTED on it being a living document.

You usually maintain a sort of stubborn attachement to your opinions , (sometimes right, just as many times wrong), I think youd learn something from the book (Its written by a real honest to goodness constitutional lawyer and researcher).

Right now some stupid Pats fan is erecting an altar in his home to properly house his prize.

MAybe , like the old teabaggers, itll start something.

You should read "The Framers Coup" its a tale about the writing of the Constitution and how the framers (in their own written words) actually saw it .They COUNTED on it being a living document.

You usually maintain a sort of stubborn attachement to your opinions ,

(sometimes right, just as many times wrong),

I think youd learn something from the book (Its written by a real honest to goodness constitutional lawyer and researcher).

And they've got a lot to do to make America the way it was back in the golden years around 1900.

For example, write an order which does not CALL for any suspension, and which does not refuse to allow *any* visas (although none may ever be granted), but which also calls for a "higher level of vetting and scrutiny" by the immigration officials.