Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billbillerton6122 This is the FOUNDERS view of the Second Amendment. Are you capable of learning? --
___
The NRA's Two Second Amendment Lies
The gun industry political front NRA tells two lies about the intent of the Second Amendment.
1. That the Second Amendment protects an "individual" "right" to possess guns.
Comparison with the several prior Supreme Court decisions, and the legislative history -- the Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- shows that Scalia's "Heller" decision is an outlier. In "Heller" he falsely held that the Amendment protects an individual right -- for which he was excoriated by legal experts across the political spectrum for ignoring this adjudicatory standard:
When a conflict over the interpretation of a law cannot be resolved within the text of the law, one reverts to the legislative history of the law -- in this instance Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment.
The facts from those Debates:
The subject of the Amendment is well regulated Militia, and its purpose to establish a National Defense, relying on that Militia. The Militia is not an individual, and is a public institution, regulated under both Federal and state constitutions and laws; thus the Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership:
James Madison is called "the father of the Constitution," and the gun industry/NRA claims that Madison wrote the Second Amendment. If both of those are facts, then the word "people" is consistent in meaning from beginning of the Constitution to the end of the first 10 Amendments. The first three words of the Constitution are "We the people," not, "We the individual".
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, which the gun industry/NRA calls the "Madison" Amendment -- but which it never quotes. [Here I clarify it for the logic-impaired]:
"The right of the people [PLURAL] to keep and bear arms [this phrase is the well-regulated Militia, and was drawn from four state constitution Militia Clauses] shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms [in well-regulated Militia] shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [in well-regulated Militia] in person."
Source: Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, Paperback, 1991), Edited by Helen E Veit, et al., at 12. (This volume is readily available from Amazon.)
Note the word "compelled": Militia service was a DUTY -- not a "right". And note the words "people" and "person": if a person -- individual -- claimed "religious" exemption from that DUTY, his case was scrutinized individually.
The only "individual" "right" Congress debated was that last clause -- "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service" -- and it was obviously dropped from the proposed Amendment before it was ratified. Thus the Second Amendment obviously does not protect "individual" ANYTHING.
Only by ignoring the legislative history -- Congress' Debates of the writing of the Amendment, which are LEGAL AUTHORITY -- could Scalia falsely hold that the Amendment protects an "individual" "right".
2. That the purpose of the Amendment was to establish a "right" to "take up arms" against the gov't -- which is refuted by the Constitution itself:
Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.
The Founders themselves twice established the precedent on the point:
Under the Articles of Confederation, "Shays's" rebellion was suppressed by the state's legitimate well-regulated Militia, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
And under the Constitution, AFTER the Second Amendment was ratified, the "Whiskey" rebellion was suppressed by Federalized Militia, lead by George Washington, and the rebels charged with, tried for, and convicted of, TREASON, and sentenced to death.
The Congress, as a co-equal branch of gov't, has the authority and power to overturn Supreme Court decisions.
Overturn "Heller".
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@davidgoldman9820 Ken Starr? You do know, don't you, that he was forced to resign from Baylor University School of Law for covering up sexual assault allegations against the Baylor football team?
In other words: Starr has always been a political hack; and like Dershowitz, who claims to be a Liberal Democrat, is asserting now the exact opposite of that which he asserted when Clinton/a Democrat was being impeached.
If I want to listen to flat-out lying against the known facts, I'll listen to the defenders of Trump. Let's look at just the issue of ethics:
1. Trump defense lawyer Cippolone was named by Parnas -- WITH DOCUMENTATION -- as a participant in the issue for which Trump has been impeached and is being tried. ETHICALLY one cannot be both a lawyer for a party, and a witness, in the same trial.
2. Parnas -- also WITH DOCUMENTATION -- Parnas named Sekulow as a participant in the issue for which Trump has been impeached and is being tried. ETHICALLY one cannot be both a lawyer for a party, and a witness , in the same trial.
It's easy to believe whatever one wants, of course, if one dispenses with Constitution, rule of law, ethics, facts, and truth. We know not only that Trump attempted to shake down Ukraine -- Mulvaney admitted it, as a DIRECT WITNESS, on tape. And we know that Trump has REPEATEDLY invited other foreign powers -- including Russia and China -- to subvert the US election: we have him ON TAPE doing so. It is also STATUTORILY ILLEGAL to accept of solicit foreign help in US elections.
If you approve of those ILLEGAL efforts to subvert the election, would you approve if the subversion were to favor the candidate you DON'T want elected? I thought not. And what does that say for YOUR ethics?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garythomas4936 Personal attack noted. But that's all you have. Try this on for size, punk:
___
"No Collusion"?
Trump's July 27, 2016 Solicitation of Crime with Russia.
This is Webster's definition of "collusion":
"Secret agreement or cooperation for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose".
How many Trumpeters lied about their contacts with Russians during the Trump-Putin COLLUSION?
THIS IS THE LAW:
The Model Penal Code defines solicitation as commanding, encouraging, or requesting another person to engage in conduct that constitutes a crime or an attempt to commit a crime (with the intent that the crime be committed). Model Penal Code S. 5.02(1) (1962). Generally the code provides that solicitation be as punishable as the crime solicited. Id. at S. 5.05(1). Law Dictionary, Giffis, at 446.
THIS IS THE EVIDENCE:
We have Trump on video, in broad daylight, soliciting Russia:
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."
To "find" those emails required computer hacking. Computer hacking is a felony.
In fact, he solicited a series of felonies, beginning with computer hacking and stealing private property, through to receiving and possessing that stolen property.
And we know that on the same day as Trump's solicitation, within hours thereafter, Russia hacked computers and stole the emails. That made Trump a co-conspirator with Russia.
That conspiracy is an additional felony.
____________
PLEASE CIRCULATE INTACT.
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 "State" = GOV'T.
AGAIN: the ENTIRE Constitution is in effect at the same time:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute [ENFORCE] the Laws of the Union, SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS, and repel Invasions."
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for organizing, ARMING, and disciplining, the Militia . . . reserving to the STATES [GOV'T] the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed BY CONGRESS."
As shown by the DEBATES of those who WROTE the amendment, the subject is WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. A Militia is NOT an individual, it is a public institution, and has ALWAYS been an arm OF gov't.
The State's militia -- the commander-in-chief of which is the STATE'S GOVERNOR -- is under the REGULATION and governance of BOTH US and state constitutions AT THE SAME TIME.
Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES -- "Militia Acts". What have you read OTHERR than gun industry propaganda pumped out by the NRA? NOTHING.
There is no other "militia"; we know from the Constitution, and the "Declaration," that the Founders were OPPOSED to armed gangs running around outside and shooting at the gov't. From the "Declaration":
"[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
I also note the Founders' responses to "Shays's" and Whiskey" insurrections.
READ YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION: from that you'll learn that the well-regulated Militia, by the mere fact that it is IN that constitution, is REGULATED AND GOVERNED UNDER LAW.
As I've made clear, the INTENT of the Second Amendment was to establish a National Defense relying on the well-regulated Militia. In so doing it BOTH guaranteed that the states -- GOV'T -- could keep their well-regulated Militia, AND that those Militia would ALSO be REGULATED and governed BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T.
I also made clear that there was ONE "individual right" Debated -- to NOT bear arms, to NOT render MILITARY SERVICE, in the Militia. That was VOTED DOWN before the proposed amendment was ratified.
1
-
1
-
@willmont8258 AGAIN, history- and law-illiterate:
The DEBATES of the WRITING of the Second Amendment were EXPRESSLY about establishing a National Defense as ALTERNATIVE to a standing army, which latter were views as "dangerous to liberty," which latter was not intended to exist except as necessary.
On one hand, the Founders didn't trust democracy, but did not reject it: they institutionalized it as the elected Congress. On the other, they didn't trust standing armies, but did not reject them as an option.
Again, from the "Declaration of Independence" -- which, of course, you and your fellow gun-nuts have NEVER READ:
"[King George III] has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures."
"[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power."
The Constitution -- the Second Amendment -- is not a suicide pact:
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS".
"Art. I., S. 8., C. 16. The CONGRESS shall have Power To provide for . . . ARMING . . . the Militia."
So tell us all:
Where do the "fake" anti-gov't insurrectionist "militia" get their "arms"?
You and your fellow gun-nuts have the least knowledge of how law works, or the hierarchy of law. You know nothing of the actual history, legal and otherwise; you're all drunk on whitewashed FICTIONS and fantasies of being manly man macho tough guys shooting at that which is the gov't, per the Constitution:
"We the people".
You aren't defending gun rights; You are defending mass murder of your fellow citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
States don't have "rights"? Then why do the white supremacist insurrectionist "conservatives" falsely insist that "states rights" are SUPERIOR to Federal law despite the Supremacy Clause in the Federal Constitution?
In addition to rejecting the rule of law you want to believe the nonsense that "rights" exist antagonistically against rule of law. That is the most fundamental CORRUPTION: the Founders were for "Liberty WITHIN the law". In other words, you wouldn't know what "rights" to claim if they weren't secured in WRITING.
I recommended to you "A Treatise of Courts Martial and Military Law" (1813) by Isaac Maltby. His "Introduction" begins:
"This treatise was originally undertaken, in compliance with the solicitation of military gentlemen; and solely with a view to the militia. In the prosecution of the work, it was frequently necessary to refer to the acts and articles of war of the United States. The State laws and those of the United States_, the duties of the regular soldier and the citizen soldier, were so blended, it was determined to bring the whole subject under consideration. The militia man is indeed deeply interested in _all its details, being liable to the same pains and penalties, and to the same rules and regulations, by the articles of war, as the individual of the regular army. Besides this personal interest_, which every militia officer has at stake, in these discussions, there is also a _public interest involved. He owes certain duties to the public . . . ."
Maltby also includes, in his "Appendix," complete copy of the Massachusetts-Bay
"An Act for establishing Rules and Articles for governing the troops stationed in forts and garrisons, within this commonwealth; and also the militia, or any part thereof, when called into actual service," enacted October 24, 1786.
That also indicates that there were "troops" other than the militia. Thus the "blending": the same rules applying to regular military also applying to militia. And you want to believe that playing militia is a "right" by pretending one has a "right" to act "on behalf of" the gov't. I encourage reading "Presser" to learn why that is FALSE; and why "private" military organizations, paramilitaries, fake "militia," and armed gangs running around outside the law -- all the same thing -- are, under "Presser," prohibited.
It is the "discipline" -- Sixty-Two sections, each stipulating an offense, some being prohibitions against swearing and other harsh language, some stipulating the death penalty, all prosecutable by courts martial.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Only to law-illiterates.
1. The sources of that which became the Second Amendment (it was first the "Sixth," then the IVth) were the lengthy legal history beginning with the establishment of the several colonies, which eventuated in "Militia Clauses" in the state constitutions.
2. The direct sources for the Second amendment were four State constitution "Militia Clauses," which addressed BOTH Militia and standing armies. Of the four the most elegant, and based on reading of all the prior state constitutions, is that in the Massachusetts-By constitution of 1780:
"XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms [this is the well-regulated Militia] for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, [standing] armies aare dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the onsent of the Legislature; and the military power [which obviously includes the well-regulated Militia as the ONLY CONSTANT military force] SHALL ALWAYS be held in an exact subordination to the Civil authority [GOV'T, which is by definition RULE OF LAW], and be governed by it."
Another of the four state Militia Clauses that were the sources of the Second Amendment was from the Vermont constitution of July 8, 1777:
"Chapter I.
. . . .
"XV. That the people have a right to bear arms [as well-regulated, UNDER LAW, Militia] for the defence of themselves AND the State [GOV'T/RULE OF LAW]; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military [which OBVIOUSLY includes Militia] should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power [GOV'T]."
The implementing STATUTES are termed "Militia Acts".
SEPARATELY, in Chapter II, is THIS:
"S. XXXIX. That the inhabitants of this State, shall have liberty to hunt and fowl, in seasonble times [as REGULATED BY LAW], on the lands they hold, and on other lands (not enclosed;) . . . under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Assembly."
Only CRIMINALS claim to be exempt from the rule of law.
1
-
1