[DMoriarty]

As to your second post,  If the USGA was so careless with their language then they'd have an ambiguity problem and if I ever litigated cheater lines I'd have a fighting chance.  

As you know, Mr. Sentence Diagram Expert, you diagram sentences from the inside out.   The right to associate or petition is NOT in the negative but in the affirmitave.   The rest of the phrase (shall not abridge) does not change this.

In contrast, the 'shall not abridge freedom of speech, press, etc.' is in the negative.  So Or is perfectly appropriate.  

The only AND/OR that matters to the "shall not abridge" part is the one following the ";" after the word "press."

Let me break it down for you . . .

This is the clause in the negative . . .
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, OR of the press; OR the right of the people . . .

This one is in the affirmative . . .
the right of the people to peacably assemble, AND petition.  

So . . .

1) The these two are different- one affirmative, one negative, therefore it is incorrect to assume that they should consistently use AND or OR (as your first post does.)
2)  Alternative Rights would be created in the second clause because the second clause is in the affirmative.  

This is getting boring . . .

[TEPaul]

"I'll merely state this principal. People are free to discriminate. The State (or US Govt) can also, but it has to have a reason."

JohnC:

Couldn't agree with you more. Most of the discussion on this thread about some "right" of "freedom of association" for things like private golf clubs in America really wasn't about whether that "right" actually exists or not. Of course it exists---to know that all we have to do is look at the histories of private clubs in America and the things they've done, continue to do etc.

And as far as some "right" of "freedom of association" in entities such as private golf clubs having some basis in law--of course it does, otherwise what does anyone think these cases are that we can read about over the years---cases that have been considered in one way or another even by the US Supreme Court?

That's not the same thing as some clear indication of a "right" of "freedom of association" in the US Constitution or Bill of Rights but it certainly is a "de facto" situation that has gone on from the beginning of the country and continues to---and the US Goverenment as well as the various States and local governments certainly are aware of it and countenance it in their various legal ways.

What we were talking about on here is what would happen if a case such as a potential "Burk vs ANGC" actually landed in the US Supreme Court? We were conjecturing how the Court would rule on something like that and where they would find the wording or logic in the Constitution or Bill or Rights to decide to really define it to be preserved or denied? Would they choose to specifically define it once and for all? Or would they use some partial finding as they did with some of these other cases on the general subject and basically choose to send the resolution back to the last court through which it came?

That's most of what this thread was about.

It seems to me that various "rights" of the poeple are assumed in what's referred to as "UNenumerated Rights" by the Bill of Rights Amendments IX and X. What that means to me is the people of this Nation have various rights unless or until the various governments, for whatever reason, decide to limit or remove some previously assumed (de facto) right (Unenumerated). And obviously the US Supreme Court is the final arbitor of what is legal or not--ultimately even over the laws of any State.

All of this is the way this Nation and it's law progresses and evolves, in my opinion. I have never felt the way "strict constructionists" of the Constitution or Bill of Rights view the way this Nation works or should work---eg if it's not specifically worded and/or mentioned in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that Governement has no right or power to do something or to legislate or rule something legal or illegal. Of course they do, what do any of us think they have been doing for over 200 years? In the Judicial Dept of the Federal government (US Supreme Court) what in the world do they think Justice John Marshall did so much of? If that wasn't total judical "interpretation" free and clear of specific wording within the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, what was it then?

I think some conservative "strict constructionist" sometimes get a little confused between what they don't personally like or personally don't agree with and what they think the government actually can and can't do! That's what a lot of this boils down to, I think.

But the real point is that the mechanisms are there in the US Constitution and Bill of RIghts that ultimately give Ultimate POWER, not to the Executive, Legislative or even the Judiciary! The Ultimate power in this Nation rests within the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights with THE PEOPLE!

Obviously, given our basic "democratic" construct of essentially 51% (simple majority) the People have never actually used those mechanisms to make some general discontent against the US Government known.

But if and when they ever get pissed off enough over some issue or any issue they most certainly can use those mechanisms!  

One would have to say looking at our entire history of our form of government in this Nation that at least 51% of the citizenry have been content enough with the way things have always been not to want to do anything different about it.

[TEPaul]

I guess the real point on this thread and particuarly with our "lawyer" contingent of Shivas, Moriarty and perhaps soon to be lawyer SPDB, is that it doesn't appear to me that any of them have a particularly clear idea of what our US Supreme Court would think, say or rule regarding a clear "case" where the American "right" of "freedom of association" of a private golf club such as ANGC against some claims of a Martha Burk was being asked to be ruled on.

They may think they know what those jurists (at any time and makeup) would do and exactly where they'd find the wording and logic to refer to to write opinions, particularly a majority opinion but I don't believe they do. And of course, certainly, neither do I!  

[TEPaul]

David Moriaty said;

"I guess Mr. Paul will not be nominating me for a position on the USGA governing committee."

Not that I have the ability to do something like that but if I did have that ability, I think we've finally found something that we agree on!  

Frankly, if I was on the nominating committee of the USGA I believe I mighty suggest that one could never go wrong by striking from consideration any candidate who ever had anything at all to do with the law.  

[John_Cullum]

T Paul:
 I have been a bit hesitant to plunge head first into this pool. That said, I'm going about knee high now.

First, I believe the diagramming of the sentence exercise as some "answer" is a rather meaningless exercise. Shivas might be able to trick some Illinois lower appellate court egomaniacs into going in that direction, but that won't happen before the gang of nine in DC.

Tom, your argument zips by a very important constitutional premise. The people of the US don't get any rights from the Constitution. We have those rights indelibly, inalienably from our Creator.

I would tend to agree with Shivas that the "Constitution's" "right to assemble" is connected to the purpose of addressing grievances with the government; however, that is of no import. As you correctly observe that there are so  many other rights.

The issue is whether people have a right, protected from government interference, to gather amongst themselves to the exclusion of certain others for some not unlawful purpose.

We don't know the "answer," other than to say "yes and no." If there is no government interest concerned, the answer is yes, they can assemble. But once the assembly ceases to be a gathering of people, and is instead some commercial enterprise or activity in which a goverment might claim an interest, the needle starts heading toward no.

[John_Cullum]

Shivas

There is some merit in your statements about diagramming. I just don't see that analysis as helpful in resolving the issue of private club status. If you only offer it as contrarian to David Moriarty's belief as to the meaning of the first amendment, I would suggest there are more persuasive arguments (i.e. the historical context and earlier drafts of the amendment.

Also, for what it is worth, I see numerous references to the "framer's intents." I feel it is somewhat noteworthy to observe that we are not discussing the Constitution as ordained and established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. We are discussing an amendment drafted by Congress and put to the States for ratification in 1791.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said;

"--  Some members of some clubs apparently dont buy into the notion that allowing some access to the great courses is a good idea.  Take TEPaul's comments earlier, "You (and Rich) keep saying that the system in Europe is better. Better for whom? It may be better for golfers who want access to play private clubs but I don't think the way it's done in Europe is better than America for the member of a private club."  Presumably TEPaul is talking about belonging to a really top tier club which allows one to gain access at other top tier clubs."  

Some members of some clubs apparently don't buy into the notion that allowing access to the great courses is a good idea? What is that about? I don't think the issue here is about great courses, it's about a right of freedom of association and "privacy" in this country and how that impacts access to private clubs.

I can't recall ever meeting any member of any private club anywhere, even those clubs whose courses are considered great on here, who suggested denying access to any private course. Seems to me what most all those members of private clubs ARE saying is they would like to be the ones to decide who's given access. Seems to me they're saying they would prefer not to have any government tell them who can have access to their course. Does that sound unreasonable to you?

I never said a thing about belonging to a top tier club which allows one to gain access to other top tier clubs. I never even said anything about top tier clubs or great courses either on this thread although for some reason you seem to presume I did.

Do you believe in a right of freedom of association within the private club entity in America David Moriarty?

It would probably be better if you just answered that question instead of trying to tell me or this thread what I'm presumably talking about.

[TEPaul]

"John, I completely agree that the Constitution doesn't grant rights to people.  It is a document that prevents the government from interfering with those rights."

Shiv:

Is that what you think the US Constitution does? If so, no wonder some seem to be having trouble agreeing on various details of the issue of any American "right" of "freedom of association".

I think it's probably pretty safe to say, despite how some of our "legal minds" on here view my old textbook that it's true what that old McGraw-Hill textbook says about the US Consitution that essentially what it really does is "reserve" certain "rights" to the US Government. And that's just about all it says in its brief ten pages? Why? Simply to explain how the Federal Government works!  

Some rights of the people were defined in the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) which essentially just listed a number of things the Federal Government could NOT do. That's precisely why I think the IXth and Xth Amendments are so interesting and probably pretain more to this specific subject than most think---eg given the way the US Government and its law making processes work.

Those last two Amendments instead of attempting to list every conceivable "right" of the people simply said that anything that was not heretofore "reserved" as a right to the US Government or to one of the States was a right reserved for the people. In this context unenumerated and unlisted are synonymous. IX implies it and X makes it clearer and confirms it.  

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas,

Except for Baseball (apparently still not interstate commerce), that boat left the pier sometime around 1824.  

Also, it occurs to me that your philosophy is Scalian (though he doesn't follow it much).

[Kevin_Reilly]

This thread reminds me of the "politics" section of the attached Primer on "Real Life vs The Internet".

Real Life vs The Internet

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Kevin, What do you think I feel like?  I was stupid enough to start this thing going and I haven't a clue what anyone is talking about now.  Even the Rules of Golf seem simplicity themselves in comparison.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, there is no bigger believer in the 10th amendment than me.  I think our disagreement is purely semantic.  You see the rights not granted to the government as "granted" to the people by virtue of the constitution.  I see the constitution as merely reaffirming those pre-existing rights that the people already had.  In effect, I see the 10th amendment as the people saying "here, feds, we've got all these rights -- A thru Z; we gave you B, C and D and that's it.  We're keeping all the rest"

Shiv:

If that's the way you see it then we're in the same place only we got there through different doors. I don't believe "the people", or even the Framer's acting on behalf of the people saw the Constitution doing that exactly otherwise they probably never would've demanded or asked for and gotten the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) and in the case of the explanation of who had which rights particularly regarding the rights left to the People, Amendments IX and X. Those two Amendments basically state, although under your scenario, perhaps confirm that any rights not otherwise "reserved" for and by the US Government or the States went to the People (or in your scenario stayed with the People).

Because I look at it that way, I also believe that if wording or exact wording regarding a right such as "freedom of association" cannot specifically be found in the US Constitution or the first eight Amendments (sometimes assumed to be in or implied by the !st Amendment) it can be assumed by the IXth and Xth Amendments for the very reason you give---that going into all this the People had inalienable rights only a few of which they agreed to give to the States or the US Government. Under my scenario, I have no idea whether the People felt they held all those rights previously but I can see that in a sense they did demand the explanation of or at least reference to those rights in the Bill of Rights, and particuarly in Amendments IX and X.

However, although that's the way it was constructed by the US Constitution which basically set into structure and operation the US Governement, clearly an "assumed" or "Unenumerated" right of the People referred to by the IXth and Xth Amendments can be limited or even removed by the mechanisms of the on-going operation of the US Government through Congressional legislation or Judical ruling or "review" (or the creation of State laws that are never ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court).

The expectation obviously is, however, that whatever that law or judicial ruling is that limits or denies a previously inalienable or "assumed" or "unenumerated" right (never previously tested in a court), that that limitation or denial of a previous right will last only if the People will ultimately agree to it through the US democatic construct of simple majority (51%). Obviously that kind of sentiment is never exactly tested or perhaps exactly determined but if some law or judicial ruling limiting or denying a previous right ever came to be unpopular enough the mechanisms are there within the US Constitution to change those laws or rulings ultimately through such Constitutional mechanisms as the Vote, Recall, Impeachment, Constitutional amendment etc, etc.

And if those mechanisms are not protection enough for the "rights" of the People in a US democratic construct, don't forget probably the most powerful mechanism of all is we really do live in a political world---and that can change the thing the apparent "simple majority" may want to change as quickly as the other mechanisms!  

But back to this specific subject of this thread. It's my sense that an American "right" to "freedom of association" in the context of the way it has been practiced in this country within the context of the "private" status golf club, which by the way certainly does make that "right" a de facto right, will never be completely denied by any state or the US Government through either legislation or a US Supreme Court ruling. I believe that all those entities understand or will understand that enough people will simply not stand for it to allow that to be denied altogether.

There's no doubt that in recent times the operation and practice of that right of freedom of association has been continuously eroded and limited but the people who practice and use it are apparently satisfied enough to continue to use it as it now exists. But, if, at some time in the future, some entity, particularly the US Government tries to deny it altogether, I believe the pendulum of popular sentiment will swing away from this increasingly "anti-discrimination" sentiment and back toward the defense and preservation of the right of freedom of association. If they try to take it away altogether from a private club that is not in the business of commerce the question is where will they draw the line of a right of freedom of association? At our front doors?    That question and that prospect is dire enough that I believe they will never deny it to a private status club altogether.

[George Pazin]

...I don't believe "the people", or even the Framer's acting on behalf of the people saw the Constitution doing that exactly otherwise they probably never would've demanded or asked for and gotten the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments)

Tom -

You're probably aware of this, but there are some who felt it wasn't even necessary to list the Bill of Rights, and that doing so might end up limiting rights that hadn't been expressly written.

John C -

You're certainly correct, I can't argue the specifics of the law with just about any of the characters involved in this debate. I am simply arguing the philosophy behind it, while pointing out that I believe many in the judiciary branch have sought to blot out the wonderful checks and balances built into the system. Interestingly, I agree 100% with Dave M's point about the tyranny of the majority; I just think there are more than a few justices who are actually stepping beyond their duties and enforcing their own beliefs, rather than protecting the Constitution. Tyranny is certainly overstating their position, but I need to rile up Sean and Dave somehow. I also had to mollify Sean - I didn't want him to feel too bad for agreeing with me earlier in the thread.

[SPDB]

Georgie - Was that for my benefit? I just assume your echoing the baseless, but fashionable, political rhetoric.

I'm still waiting waiting for Shivas Legal's response regarding the paralyzing (the absolute deathly!) fear the Framers had of a centralized government.  

To quote that great American patriot, original states-righter and boycotter of the constitutional convention, Patrick Henry:

"I smell a rat!"    

[George Pazin]

If I didn't echo baseless fashionable political rhetoric, I'd have nothing to say.

 

[SPDB]

George - Given the recent demands on your time, I assumed you hadn't had the chance to pore over the opinions of tyrannical judges. With a child to tend to, you're much better off just simply parroting Tom DeLay.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, my reference to the clause as "affirmative" may be incorrect (I dont know the terminology for god sakes), but you are just flat out wrong regarding  your interpretation.

The negative verb is followed by compound objects (making up terminology again) seperated by OR:  OR speach, OR press; OR the right . . . .   "Right" is the object.  

The two rights in question-- assembly and petition-- modify RIGHT.   The conjunction between them is not dependent upon the tense of the verb.   Rather, the conjunction (AND or OR) depends upon the meaning the writer is trying to convey.

Further Shivas, you have never addressed the big question.   Why the comma?   There is no reason for a comma there if this is but one right.   Grammatically, it makes absolutely no sense.

But this is all absolutely irrelevant, and no way to determine the meaning of the document.  We both know what they meant.  

1.  They meant assembly to apply to political assembly.
2.  They meant these to stand as two rights.  

How do we know this:
1.  From contemporary uses we know that is the way they used this phrase and what they meant by it.  
2.  As importantly, that is how we have interpreted it over the years.

My theory again:

You Borkers cant find the meaning you know exists in the text, so you torture the text until you pretend to find it.   That is the problem with Borking the Constitution,  Borkers will go to great lengths to find what the want in the text, but no lengths to find what they do not want to find.   They know that political assembly is the only thing that would make sense, so by God they will find it in there even if it means reading out a comma or two.  

[George Pazin]

You Borkers cant find the meaning you know exists in the text, so you torture the text until you pretend to find it.   That is the problem with Borking the Constitution,  Borkers will go to great lengths to find what the want in the text, but no lengths to find what they do not want to find.   They know that political assembly is the only thing that would make sense, so by God they will find it in there even if it means reading out a comma or two.  

This is actually a pretty solid theory.

But I do have to ask a basic question:

Is there anybody that truly believes that the founders of our country really didn't believe in freedom of association?

I'm not asking if some sharp con law lawyer couldn't find whatever, I'm not asking if some "well intentioned" justice couldn't find a meaning in there somewhere it isn't, I'm just asking a simple question:

Do you truly believe the drafters of the Constitution didn't believe in freedom of association?

(I could also ask: Do you truly believe they intended the PC yielding, fictitious right finding country we currently live in? But I'll leave that one for another day. )

[DMoriarty]

George, a very good question, but not a simple one to answer.  

My gut answer is yes.  Much of the bill of rts. can be linked to an overwhealming desire to keep the federal government out of the citizens' private affairs.  (See The Opinion of the Court (Douglas) in Griswold for a good summary. ) I can think of no good reason why they would not have included private associations within the realm of private affairs which need be protected.  

But then this really isnt the issue . . .

IMO when they speak of the right to assemble in the First Amendment they were primarily (and maybe exclusively) concerned with political rights.  These guys were overwhealmingly concerned with keeping the political process free of interference from an overbearing government.

[Many have missed that Shivas and I are in complete agreement on this, we just disagree on how one justifies reading the political modifier into the document. ]

But seperate and apart from the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rts, did they believe in the freedom of association?  I doubt it really ever occurred to them that sometime down the road the federal government would be meddling with any sort of private gathering.  

But this cuts two ways.   On the one hand, they didn't bother to put this specific limitation on this issue.  

On the other hand, they may not have felt they needed to, since the concept of that invasive a federal government way out of line with what they had in mind initially.  (I agree with Shivas here that the Constitution was a grant to power and that they really had no justification to to get involved in the private lives of citizens unless they had explicitly been granted that power.)  But then this isnt really an associational right, but a freedom from all federal govt. intrusion absent a specific grant to power.  

The best way to figure this out would be to take a look at some of the state Constitutions that either predate or closely follow our Constitution.   My guess is that you will find that they were primarily concerned with assembly for political (and religious) purposes, but I could be wrong.


 

[DMoriarty]

Some members of some clubs apparently don't buy into the notion that allowing access to the great courses is a good idea? What is that about? I don't think the issue here is about great courses, it's about a right of freedom of association and "privacy" in this country and how that impacts access to private clubs.

Nine pages in and you dont even know what the thread is about.  Somehow I am not surprised.  

Mark Rowlingson started this thread with a question of why non-U.S. clubs were more accomodating to outside play.  I prefaced the paragraph you quoted that it was an answer to Mr. Rowlingson's original question.  So the issue here is about why US clubs are not more accomodating in outside play.
 

I can't recall ever meeting any member of any private club anywhere, even those clubs whose courses are considered great on here, who suggested denying access to any private course. Seems to me what most all those members of private clubs ARE saying is they would like to be the ones to decide who's given access. Seems to me they're saying they would prefer not to have any government tell them who can have access to their course. Does that sound unreasonable to you?

As is the case everytime this comes up, you try to turn this into a legal discussion on the rt. of association.  So far as I am aware, noone is here is denying that such right exists under today's interpretation of the relevant law, including the Constitution.   Private clubs can keep out anyone the choose.  

The questions remains, however: why do they keep out those that they keep out?  (Let me guess your answer:  It is none of anyone's damn business why they do what they do.  Only in about 50 times as many words.)

I never said a thing about belonging to a top tier club which allows one to gain access to other top tier clubs. I never even said anything about top tier clubs or great courses either on this thread although for some reason you seem to presume I did.

What you said what I quoted.  But what you said only makes sense if the member 1) doesnt ever want to play anywhere else, or the member is from a prestigious enough club that few would dare deny him.  

Do you believe in a right of freedom of association within the private club entity in America David Moriarty?

I've said what i believe the law is repeatedly.  

It would probably be better if you just answered that question instead of trying to tell me or this thread what I'm presumably talking about.

Tom from my past experience with you by this point in a thread you rarely know what you have said or what you are talking about.   That you were unaware of this threads' topic is further evidence of this.

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas, (I can't believe I'm doing this)

You and others keep claiming that the constitution granted the federal government only certain enumerated powers, and NO OTHERS.  If that is true, then why the hell does the bill of rights specifically DENY certain powers to the feds?  By your view, so long as the constitution doesn't grant the Congress the right to make a law abridging the freedom of speech, it cannot do so.  However, if that is what the framers meant, they never would have thought it necessary to deny Congress power it doesn't have.  Things are not as simple as you claim.

David,

Shivas is in no way a Borkian.  Rather, his views on this thread are far closer to Scalia.  Bork doesn't really give 2 beans about statutory language (which the constitution really is), but believes that you need to look at legislative history, the historical context, and in many other places to divine legislative intent.  Bork is the one who said that the 9th amendment was nothing more than an inkblot devoid of meaning.

Scalia, on the other hand, has repeatedly and vociferously denounced any resort to materials beyond the actual language of a statute or constitutional provision in attempting to figure out what it means.  He is a plain meaning judge.  Of course, when that doesn't suit his views, he is quite capable of hypocritically resorting to what conservatives would denounce as judicial activism, if they actually had an principles (see Scalia's hilarious opinions in 11th amendment cases where he states something on the order of, "while our decision is not supported by the language of the amendment, we have never limited the reach of the amendment to its terms").

Shivas here is strictly a plain meaning guy, however wrong his interpretation may be.

One of the problems with trying to say something about how the "right of association" would apply to Augusta is that these things often depend on the facts of the case.  Generalities get you no where.  I want to laugh every time someone says something ridiculous like "there's no right of privacy in the Constitution" because the answer to most questions of law is "it depends."

[mike_beene]

Doesn't Scalia seek to interpret the constitution based upon the writers intent at the time the document was created? Shivas,in my profession to call someone a litigator borders on slander.

[Dan Kelly]

I am an editor, not a lawyer (hold your applause), and I have not read more than 10% of this thread, so it is undoubtedly a rash and ill-considered action on my part to wade in here -- but wade in, at least up to my ankles, I shall.

I have one thing to say: Madison and friends badly needed an editor.

Consider Amendment I:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Had Mr. Madison offered me this sentence, I would have said:

"Well, you're on the right track here, Jim -- but there's plenty of room for improvement ... if I understand what you're trying to say, that is.

"First, why 'respecting an establishment of religion'? Why not 'establishing an official religion'? Isn't that clearer? Isn't that plainly what you mean to say?

"Second, do you really intend to preclude just the 'prohibiting' of the free exercise of religion? Don't you want to prevent the state from interfering with the free exercise of religious beliefs -- interference well short of prohibition? Why don't you say so, then?

"Third, as for 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press': That's good, and it's quite clear -- but aren't we a little comma-happy there, Jim? What does that comma add? Nothing! Get rid of it. If you put one there, 200-and-some years from now, a couple of lawyers on a golf-course-architecture discussion group will try to find some *significance* in its being there -- when it's as plain as the nose on George Washington's face that that comma is quite meaningless and unnecessary, a mere literary affectation. Sorry to say so, but someone must. Hey, even a Founding Father needs an editor!

"And as for 'or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances': Where in hell is the parallel structure, boy? Congress shall make no law respecting ... abridging ... or ... what? Where's the participle? Or WHATTING the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances? Limiting it? Diminishing it? Abolishing it? Respecting it? Abridging it? What? Oh, what a mess this last part is. It'll never do, as is.

"And then there's that superfluous comma again -- before 'and to petition'! Who are you, anyway -- James Madison or David Halberstam? That's *one thing* you mean there, right? You mean: The government can't get in the way of people's getting together to complain about the government's ripping them off? That's what you're saying -- isn't it? You're surely not mucking up this constitution with a lot of claptrap saying it's OK to have private golf clubs -- are you? See? So you've gotta get rid of that last comma, too, or -- even with that 'and' there -- you'll be confusing some folks into thinking you have two *separate* things in mind.

"Here's what I suggest we go with: 'Congress shall make no law establishing an official religion, or interfering with any citizen's free exercise of his religious beliefs; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or limiting the people's right to assemble peacefully, complain about their government, and demand to be treated better.' See? Isn't that much, much better?

"Now, let's move on to Amendment II -- where, no offense intended, it becomes considerably clearer that you're not that hot a writer (and haven't a clue about punctuation): '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.'

"Oh, dear boy, that one there is going to take considerable work. Do you need this before the 19th century?"

[ForkaB]

Thanks for jumping in, Dan.  I was just about to try to summon you to this thread for a breath of sanity and humo(u)r.  My prayers were answered!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Goldman,

I hope you dont mind if I take a shot at answering your question to Shivas, which is a good one.  One way to make sense of it is to read the Bill of Rts as a limitation to the powers already granted.  

In fact the Preamble to the BofRts says this, almost  . . .

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.  (my bolds)

As for the interpretive styles of Bork vs. Scalia, Shivas loves the Bork so I go with it.  I think their respective approaches depend on whether you listen to their self-promotion or read their opinions.  I think that both would agree that when the Constitutional text has a "plain meaning," such meaning is binding, and I think that is what Shivas thinks he is doing here.   First they each look at the words (sometimes squinting with one eye closed.)  Then each turns to secondary sources as it suits them.  Bork may be more likely to try to back up his understanding of the plain meaning than Scalia.  (I wonder if this has something to do with one having been confirmed and the other, well you know . . . .)
____________________

Dan Kelly, Funny stuff.  Blasphemous but funny.  

________________________

Moriarty, in my opinion, you really are an idiot. . . .  [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah] . . . there's no reason for me to respond to that last post of yours or perhaps any others of yours.

Thank goodness.  Finally.  

This thread is about access to private clubs. In my opinion, . . . . [blah, blah, blah, blah, blah] . . . .

Damn, that didnt last long.  I knew it was too good to be true.  

I beg you Tom, take your own advice and refrain from responding to (commenting on) my posts.  You are the Warren G. Harding of this website-- A TEPaul post is typically nothing but “an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea.”

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()