|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 17, 2014 2:10:42 GMT
I certainly never intended to alter the criteria. It was my intent, form the beginning, to discuss the person who wishes to live on a parcel of land in suburbia (containing, of course, a house). But if I was insufficiently clear on this point, I apologize. It has long been my understanding that Guantanamo Bay is a part of America--not a part of Cuba, despite its geography--but I will readily admit that I am no expert on this matter. Returning, for a moment, to the matter of the property in suburbia: Do you believe that a lease "in perpetuity" could be for the same amount of money as an outright sale of the property? And how might one be authorized to lease that which one does not actually own (by your reasoning), anyway?
The "criteria" has been clarified and misunderstandings are common so no biggie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty
As noted it is a lease, not ownership and that land is still a part of Cuba, and the actual treaty specifies it can only be used for "exclusively for coaling" purposes but the US no longer uses coal to fuel our naval vessels and effectively the "purpose" of the lease is no longer valid. The US retains Guantánamo Bay for political purposes that have nothing to do with the conditions of the lease agreement. As I noted if Cuba could file a lawsuit based upon the violation of the lease agreement by the US (i.e. not using Guantánamo Bay for the purposes of "coaling" of ships) an unbiased court would logically nullify the lease.
********************************
Yes, a "lease in perpetuity" can be worth the same amount as "title" to the land so long as the land is being used for the purpose intended. The value of an existing home, farmland, commercial building, ect. that is being used for the purpose intended would basically be worth the same amount.
Now for my long-winded addressing of the question:
On the flip side land values established by real estate speculation not established by the purpose intended woud be subject to loss, in part or in whole, of all financial value because the "lease in perpetuity" could be nullified or enforced by a court of law. That would drive down the "value of the land" based upon land speculation so the question is whether that's good or not. It could reduce the costs to a person seeking to live in a "home in suburbia' because the value of the land would not be artificially inflated by real estate speculators. So is being able to purchase a new home for less a good or a bad thing for Americans?
Obviously under the "social contract" the government would be responsible for establishing the "lease in perpetuity" of unused lands. The government wouldn't own the land but instead would have adminstrative authority over it based upon the "social contract" created by the People. In creating the "lease in perpetuity" the government would specify the purpose for the use of the land and the "individual" that becomes a party to the lease would agree to use the land for that purpose. They would be given a reasonable amount of time to put the land to the use intended but if they don't fulfill their responsibilities under the "terms of the lease" then they would lose the "authority to use the land" based upon the terms of the lease. Excluding the adminstrative costs related to the creation of the lease there would be no "charges" related to the lease. Basically the land would "cost nothing" except to cover the expenses related to the lease.
The "new value" of the land based upon a "lease in perpetuity" would be tied to it's "authorized usage" and the only "person" that would lose would be real estate speculators that own unused land that is currently serving no purpose whatsoever. Everyone that actually uses land for the purposes intended would profit from the loss to the real estate speculators that are merely driving up the costs of land that isn't being used at all. It's a trade off where the average person that actually uses the land for a purpose is better off financially at the expense of a the few wealthy investors that are artificially driving up the costs of land for personal profit.
A person could actually acquire a vacant lot of land in town for the "costs of the adminstrative fees" to build a store or manufacturing building, where they can afford to build the structure but not "afford the land" to build it on for example. Often times today the "cost of the land" based upon real estate speculation by wealthy "land owners" is far more than the cost of the structure on it making it cost prohibitive for an person the start a business so the business doesn't exist. Have you ever considered that? How much is our economy losing today because the entrepreneur cannot afford to fill the bank account of a wealthy real estate speculator? How many new homes aren't being built because of the additional costs of land imposed by real estate speculation?
Always remember that a person that "owns" vacant land that is not being used for any purpose doesn't need that land.
It is justifiably noted that those that don't have any actual need for the land could be "losers" based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but is that really something we should be concerned with? They are infringing upon our Right of Liberty for personal profit and that can't be rationalized IMHO. I'm not going to voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exericse my Inalienable Right of Liberty just so someone can earn a profit. I will voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty if it serves a purpose that benefits society but I see "real estate speculation" in unused land that artificially drives up it's costs for the personal financial gain of "wealthy" individuals as not being beneficial to society. Only land that is being "used" for a purpose that benefits society warrants the voluntary limitation upon my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty.
From a "transitional" perspective we could give the existing "owners" of unused land reasonable opportunity to "put the land to use" for the purpose intended. For example a person that "owns" five acres of "commercial property" could arguably build a commercial structure on it and use or lease that structure out so that a commerical entrepreneur can use it. Of course another commercial building would also drive down the lease "value" of other existing commercial properties based upon the law of supply and demand (i.e. capitialism) so this is also a consideration.This gets into the little details of course but the concept is sound.
I am unsure that I have made my point clearly, as your (somewhat loquacious) explanation simply does not address it; and I cannot believe that you are intentionally tap dancing around it. So let me try again, please. If Ordinary Citizen X (who is not a "speculator") is living on property in suburbia; and if he wishes to sell his house to Ordinary Citizen Y (but is unable to sell the land on which it sits; he may simply lease the land "in perpetuity"); does he not stand to lose money? Again, this has nothing to do with predatory real-estate pract |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 17, 2014 2:22:54 GMT
I certainly never intended to alter the criteria. It was my intent, form the beginning, to discuss the person who wishes to live on a parcel of land in suburbia (containing, of course, a house). But if I was insufficiently clear on this point, I apologize. It has long been my understanding that Guantanamo Bay is a part of America--not a part of Cuba, despite its geography--but I will readily admit that I am no expert on this matter. Returning, for a moment, to the matter of the property in suburbia: Do you believe that a lease "in perpetuity" could be for the same amount of money as an outright sale of the property? And how might one be authorized to lease that which one does not actually own (by your reasoning), anyway?
The "criteria" has been clarified and misunderstandings are common so no biggie.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban%E2%80%93American_Treaty
As noted it is a lease, not ownership and that land is still a part of Cuba, and the actual treaty specifies it can only be used for "exclusively for coaling" purposes but the US no longer uses coal to fuel our naval vessels and effectively the "purpose" of the lease is no longer valid. The US retains Guantánamo Bay for political purposes that have nothing to do with the conditions of the lease agreement. As I noted if Cuba could file a lawsuit based upon the violation of the lease agreement by the US (i.e. not using Guantánamo Bay for the purposes of "coaling" of ships) an unbiased court would logically nullify the lease.
********************************
Yes, a "lease in perpetuity" can be worth the same amount as "title" to the land so long as the land is being used for the purpose intended. The value of an existing home, farmland, commercial building, ect. that is being used for the purpose intended would basically be worth the same amount.
Now for my long-winded addressing of the question:
On the flip side land values established by real estate speculation not established by the purpose intended woud be subject to loss, in part or in whole, of all financial value because the "lease in perpetuity" could be nullified or enforced by a court of law. That would drive down the "value of the land" based upon land speculation so the question is whether that's good or not. It could reduce the costs to a person seeking to live in a "home in suburbia' because the value of the land would not be artificially inflated by real estate speculators. So is being able to purchase a new home for less a good or a bad thing for Americans?
Obviously under the "social contract" the government would be responsible for establishing the "lease in perpetuity" of unused lands. The government wouldn't own the land but instead would have adminstrative authority over it based upon the "social contract" created by the People. In creating the "lease in perpetuity" the government would specify the purpose for the use of the land and the "individual" that becomes a party to the lease would agree to use the land for that purpose. They would be given a reasonable amount of time to put the land to the use intended but if they don't fulfill their responsibilities under the "terms of the lease" then they would lose the "authority to use the land" based upon the terms of the lease. Excluding the adminstrative costs related to the creation of the lease there would be no "charges" related to the lease. Basically the land would "cost nothing" except to cover the expenses related to the lease.
The "new value" of the land based upon a "lease in perpetuity" would be tied to it's "authorized usage" and the only "person" that would lose would be real estate speculators that own unused land that is currently serving no purpose whatsoever. Everyone that actually uses land for the purposes intended would profit from the loss to the real estate speculators that are merely driving up the costs of land that isn't being used at all. It's a trade off where the average person that actually uses the land for a purpose is better off financially at the expense of a the few wealthy investors that are artificially driving up the costs of land for personal profit.
A person could actually acquire a vacant lot of land in town for the "costs of the adminstrative fees" to build a store or manufacturing building, where they can afford to build the structure but not "afford the land" to build it on for example. Often times today the "cost of the land" based upon real estate speculation by wealthy "land owners" is far more than the cost of the structure on it making it cost prohibitive for an person the start a business so the business doesn't exist. Have you ever considered that? How much is our economy losing today because the entrepreneur cannot afford to fill the bank account of a wealthy real estate speculator? How many new homes aren't being built because of the additional costs of land imposed by real estate speculation?
Always remember that a person that "owns" vacant land that is not being used for any purpose doesn't need that land.
It is justifiably noted that those that don't have any actual need for the land could be "losers" based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person but is that really something we should be concerned with? They are infringing upon our Right of Liberty for personal profit and that can't be rationalized IMHO. I'm not going to voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exericse my Inalienable Right of Liberty just so someone can earn a profit. I will voluntarily limit my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty if it serves a purpose that benefits society but I see "real estate speculation" in unused land that artificially drives up it's costs for the personal financial gain of "wealthy" individuals as not being beneficial to society. Only land that is being "used" for a purpose that benefits society warrants the voluntary limitation upon my Freedom to Exercise my Inalienable Right of Liberty.
From a "transitional" perspective we could give the existing "owners" of unused land reasonable opportunity to "put the land to use" for the purpose intended. For example a person that "owns" five acres of "commercial property" could arguably build a commercial structure on it and use or lease that structure out so that a commerical entrepreneur can use it. Of course another commercial building would also drive down the lease "value" of other existing commercial properties based upon the law of supply and demand (i.e. capitialism) so this is also a consideration.This gets into the little details of course but the concept is sound.
Your knowledge as concerning Guantanamo Bay is clearly superior to my own; so I should probaby defer to you on this point. (Still, one should probably remember that the US Supreme Court--in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008--ruled that the right to own firearms does not apply just to "a well-regulated militia," as specified in the document in question.) As regarding the sale of real estate, I am unsure that I have made my point clearly, as your (somewhat loquacious) explanation simply does not address it; and I cannot believe that you are intentionally tap dancing around it. So let me try again, please. If Ordinary Citizen X (who is not a "speculator") is living on property in suburbia; and if he wishes to sell his house to Ordinary Citizen Y (but is unable to sell the land on which it sits; he may simply lease the land "in perpetuity"); does he not stand to lose money? Again, this has nothing to do with predatory real-estate practices. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 17, 2014 9:44:50 GMT
If Ordinary Citizen X (who is not a "speculator") is living on property in suburbia; and if he wishes to sell his house to Ordinary Citizen Y (but is unable to sell the land on which it sits; he may simply lease the land "in perpetuity"); does he not stand to lose money?
Sorry but I thought I was being clear.
No, it will not affect the "value" of the home and land it is upon.
Anecdotally, as an example, I purchased my current home for $150,000 because of the attributes of the home. It was a four bedroom, two bath home with an attached two car garage, a large shop out back, and within walking distance to many retail stores. It didn't matter it I "owned the land" or had a "1,000 year transferrable lease" on the land. The "value" was identical in either case. Why would it make a difference? I'm not going to be around in 1,000 years so why would it matter? A "lease in perpetuity" doesn't end in 1,000 years but keeps on going forever.
I don't know if this is still the case but in the past a US Citizen could not purchase land in Mexico but they could obtain a 99 year lease on it to build a vacation or retirement home. The fact it was a lease and not a purchase didn't affect the value of the property one iota.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 17, 2014 9:59:27 GMT
(Still, one should probably remember that the US Supreme Court--in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008--ruled that the right to own firearms does not apply just to "a well-regulated militia," as specified in the document in question.)
In truth we don't have an Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We do have an "Inlianable Right of Self Defense Against Acts of Aggression Against Us" though. We have a protected Freedom to Exercise that Right of Self Defense by owning firearms which are the most effective, albeit deadly, form of self-defense. That was really the crux of the Heller decision. A person has a "right" (freedom) to keep and bear arms for the self-defense of their person and their home.
The 2nd Amendment is poorly worded IMHO as it relates to the Inalienable Right of Self Defense and not to the possession of an object. No one has a Right to the Possession of an Object per se. A "firearm" is not something "inherent in the person" and all Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person.
If we could create something that had the same effective ability to stop an act of aggression by someone else agianst that didn't involve lethal force then we would have no need for firearms at all. It would render the 2nd Amendment moot and, in fact, would establish a compelling argument against firearms. Such a means of stopping aggression in a non-lethal manner does not exist so its a theoretical argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 18, 2014 2:12:04 GMT
If Ordinary Citizen X (who is not a "speculator") is living on property in suburbia; and if he wishes to sell his house to Ordinary Citizen Y (but is unable to sell the land on which it sits; he may simply lease the land "in perpetuity"); does he not stand to lose money?
Sorry but I thought I was being clear.
No, it will not affect the "value" of the home and land it is upon.
Anecdotally, as an example, I purchased my current home for $150,000 because of the attributes of the home. It was a four bedroom, two bath home with an attached two car garage, a large shop out back, and within walking distance to many retail stores. It didn't matter it I "owned the land" or had a "1,000 year transferrable lease" on the land. The "value" was identical in either case. Why would it make a difference? I'm not going to be around in 1,000 years so why would it matter? A "lease in perpetuity" doesn't end in 1,000 years but keeps on going forever.
I don't know if this is still the case but in the past a US Citizen could not purchase land in Mexico but they could obtain a 99 year lease on it to build a vacation or retirement home. The fact it was a lease and not a purchase didn't affect the value of the property one iota.
Well, I do know that individual condominium units do not appreciate nearly so quickly as single-dwelling houses do. Could this not be because no one owns the (common) land on which the property sits? |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 18, 2014 2:15:44 GMT
(Still, one should probably remember that the US Supreme Court--in District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008--ruled that the right to own firearms does not apply just to "a well-regulated militia," as specified in the document in question.)
In truth we don't have an Inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We do have an "Inlianable Right of Self Defense Against Acts of Aggression Against Us" though. We have a protected Freedom to Exercise that Right of Self Defense by owning firearms which are the most effective, albeit deadly, form of self-defense. That was really the crux of the Heller decision. A person has a "right" (freedom) to keep and bear arms for the self-defense of their person and their home.
The 2nd Amendment is poorly worded IMHO as it relates to the Inalienable Right of Self Defense and not to the possession of an object. No one has a Right to the Possession of an Object per se. A "firearm" is not something "inherent in the person" and all Inalienable Rights are inherent in the person.
If we could create something that had the same effective ability to stop an act of aggression by someone else agianst that didn't involve lethal force then we would have no need for firearms at all. It would render the 2nd Amendment moot and, in fact, would establish a compelling argument against firearms. Such a means of stopping aggression in a non-lethal manner does not exist so its a theoretical argument.
Well, tasers are (theoretically, at least) non-lethal. (They have occasionally, however, had lethal effects.) Do you seriously believe that the development of any weapon might be able--even in theory--to automatcally vitiate any portion of the US Constitution? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 18, 2014 10:01:57 GMT
Well, I do know that individual condominium units do not appreciate nearly so quickly as single-dwelling houses do. Could this not be because no one owns the (common) land on which the property sits?
The ratio of "land to building ratio" is substantially greater with a single family home when compared to condo and while the value of the land increases over time the value of the building actually depreciates over time. My 1100 sq/ft home sits on a 1/4 acre while an 1100 sq/ft condo only sits on 1100 sq/ft (maybe 1/2 of that if it's a 2-story) and therein lies the difference. The land is gaining value and the structure is losing value regardless of whether the land is a "lease in perpetuity" or "titled" ownership.
Of course a person can maintain or even improve the value of the structure but that always imposes costs over time. If no further investments are made in a structure eventually it can have a negative value related to the land (i.e. the land would be worth more if the structure on it didn't have to be removed and replaced).
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 18, 2014 10:15:14 GMT
Well, tasers are (theoretically, at least) non-lethal. (They have occasionally, however, had lethal effects.) Do you seriously believe that the development of any weapon might be able--even in theory--to automatcally vitiate any portion of the US Constitution?
Tasers cannot only kill in some cases they can also fail to stop an aggessor as well.
As for the future development of a weapon other than a firearm that could provide a superior means of self-defense that is probably likely. As I've noted though the 2nd Amendment was poorly drafted though as the authors were myopic in their thoughts but I understand their intentions. As noted the actual "Right" is the "Right of Self-Defenses Against Acts of Aggression" as a person cannot have a "right" to an object (e.g. firearm). An object, like a firearm, is not Inherent in the Person which is the initial criteria in establishing an Inalienable Right.
Here's the real question though. Let's assume a far superior "weapon" that is not a firearm is invented. That weapon could be so superior to make firearms obsolete and defenseless against a tyrannical government or a criminal in possession of such a weapon. It would, by analogy, be like allowing the government and criminals to have fully automatic firearms while the people are limited to single shot black powder pistols and muskets. Does the 2nd Amendment, as written, allow the person to possess such a weapon?
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 19, 2014 0:05:11 GMT
Well, tasers are (theoretically, at least) non-lethal. (They have occasionally, however, had lethal effects.) Do you seriously believe that the development of any weapon might be able--even in theory--to automatcally vitiate any portion of the US Constitution?
Tasers cannot only kill in some cases they can also fail to stop an aggessor as well.
As for the future development of a weapon other than a firearm that could provide a superior means of self-defense that is probably likely. As I've noted though the 2nd Amendment was poorly drafted though as the authors were myopic in their thoughts but I understand their intentions. As noted the actual "Right" is the "Right of Self-Defenses Against Acts of Aggression" as a person cannot have a "right" to an object (e.g. firearm). An object, like a firearm, is not Inherent in the Person which is the initial criteria in establishing an Inalienable Right.
Here's the real question though. Let's assume a far superior "weapon" that is not a firearm is invented. That weapon could be so superior to make firearms obsolete and defenseless against a tyrannical government or a criminal in possession of such a weapon. It would, by analogy, be like allowing the government and criminals to have fully automatic firearms while the people are limited to single shot black powder pistols and muskets. Does the 2nd Amendment, as written, allow the person to possess such a weapon?
I do not believe that the Second Amendment might relate to this (hypothetical) weapon in any way. But local statutes might be enacted concerning it. And the Second Amendment specifically establishes a right to "keep and bear Arms"--not merely some nebulous "Right of Self-Defenses Against Acts of Aggression." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 19, 2014 11:41:27 GMT
I do not believe that the Second Amendment might relate to this (hypothetical) weapon in any way. But local statutes might be enacted concerning it. And the Second Amendment specifically establishes a right to "keep and bear Arms"--not merely some nebulous "Right of Self-Defenses Against Acts of Aggression."
As I've noted the 2nd Amendment addressed a concern of the authors that had recently been in armed rebellion against the British Empire. That is why the term "milita" was included in a dependent clause. They wanted to ensure that the People could revolt and overthrow a tyrannical regime based upon the political ideology expressed in the Declaration of Indepence where the "people" had not just the "right" but the "duty" to overthrow "absolute despotism" when it became intolerable to them.
But no one has an "Inalienable Right" to own an object. The 2nd Amendment is mis-phased by implying that. An "object" is not something that is 'inherent' in a person and all Rights are Inherent in the Person.
The 2nd Amendment was based upon the unenumerated Inalienable Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression protected by the 9th Amendment but it was limited in addressing a specific case of self-defence where "deadly force" could be required. It protected the person's ability to possess the "object" that could be used in a case of self-defense where deadly force would be required. A person cannot logically oppose the use of deadly force against them if they don't have a means of using deadly force. Remember one fact. The possession of a firearm only provide about a 50-50 chance of coming out alive in a case of two people both having firearms. It's not even good odds when your life is on the line but it's far better than showing up at a gun fight with a knife.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 19, 2014 16:16:25 GMT
I do not believe that the Second Amendment might relate to this (hypothetical) weapon in any way. But local statutes might be enacted concerning it. And the Second Amendment specifically establishes a right to "keep and bear Arms"--not merely some nebulous "Right of Self-Defenses Against Acts of Aggression."
As I've noted the 2nd Amendment addressed a concern of the authors that had recently been in armed rebellion against the British Empire. That is why the term "milita" was included in a dependent clause. They wanted to ensure that the People could revolt and overthrow a tyrannical regime based upon the political ideology expressed in the Declaration of Indepence where the "people" had not just the "right" but the "duty" to overthrow "absolute despotism" when it became intolerable to them.
But no one has an "Inalienable Right" to own an object. The 2nd Amendment is mis-phased by implying that. An "object" is not something that is 'inherent' in a person and all Rights are Inherent in the Person.
The 2nd Amendment was based upon the unenumerated Inalienable Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression protected by the 9th Amendment but it was limited in addressing a specific case of self-defence where "deadly force" could be required. It protected the person's ability to possess the "object" that could be used in a case of self-defense where deadly force would be required. A person cannot logically oppose the use of deadly force against them if they don't have a means of using deadly force. Remember one fact. The possession of a firearm only provide about a 50-50 chance of coming out alive in a case of two people both having firearms. It's not even good odds when your life is on the line but it's far better than showing up at a gun fight with a knife.
I am really not much concerned with some "Inalienable Right" here, but with the constitutional right to bear arms, as codified by Heller in 2008. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 20, 2014 9:48:20 GMT
I am really not much concerned with some "Inalienable Right" here, but with the constitutional right to bear arms, as codified by Heller in 2008.
In the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER the US Supreme Court cited the 9th Amendment's protection of the Inalienable Rights of Self-Defense in expanding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to beyond what is necessary for a "well regulated militia" to a protection of the right of a person to have firearms for personal defense agianst acts of aggression against them by other persons.
Of course a "strict" Constitutionalist would claim that the US Constitution doesn't enumerate the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense so Heller is a "progressive" interpretation but I would disagree because the 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated Rights of Self-Defense related to firearms just as it protects the Right of Self of the woman related to abortion. From a Constitutional perspective there is absolutely no difference between personal ownership of firearms and a woman's right to have an abortion as both hinge upon the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the Person established by the 9th Amendment. Both Heller and Roe v Wade cited the 9th Amendment in their respective decisions and it was key to both decisions.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
To understand the US Constitution it is imperative to understand the 9th Amendment as it is the most important Amendment in the US Constitution. If we truly understood the Inalienable Rights of the Person it would render all other Amendments in the Constitution that protect our Inalienable Rights moot.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 21, 2014 2:33:39 GMT
I am really not much concerned with some "Inalienable Right" here, but with the constitutional right to bear arms, as codified by Heller in 2008.
In the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER the US Supreme Court cited the 9th Amendment's protection of the Inalienable Rights of Self-Defense in expanding the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to beyond what is necessary for a "well regulated militia" to a protection of the right of a person to have firearms for personal defense agianst acts of aggression against them by other persons.
Of course a "strict" Constitutionalist would claim that the US Constitution doesn't enumerate the Inalienable Right of Self-Defense so Heller is a "progressive" interpretation but I would disagree because the 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated Rights of Self-Defense related to firearms just as it protects the Right of Self of the woman related to abortion. From a Constitutional perspective there is absolutely no difference between personal ownership of firearms and a woman's right to have an abortion as both hinge upon the protections of the unenumerated Rights of the Person established by the 9th Amendment. Both Heller and Roe v Wade cited the 9th Amendment in their respective decisions and it was key to both decisions.
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
To understand the US Constitution it is imperative to understand the 9th Amendment as it is the most important Amendment in the US Constitution. If we truly understood the Inalienable Rights of the Person it would render all other Amendments in the Constitution that protect our Inalienable Rights moot.
I do not believe that Heller "expand[ed]" Second Amendment rights, but merely elucidated and codified them. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Apr 21, 2014 3:35:15 GMT
I do not believe that Heller "expand[ed]" Second Amendment rights, but merely elucidated and codified them.
I also believe in this "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution and merely provide the argument for it based upon the unenumerated Inalienable Right of Self-Defense protected by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Heller provided the same argument for the progressive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
A "conservative" interpretation would have limited it to just the wording of the 2nd Amendment where the "militia" is the only reason cited why there is a necessity for the person to be able to "keep and bear" arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Apr 21, 2014 18:25:32 GMT
I do not believe that Heller "expand[ed]" Second Amendment rights, but merely elucidated and codified them.
I also believe in this "progressive" interpretation of the Constitution and merely provide the argument for it based upon the unenumerated Inalienable Right of Self-Defense protected by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court in Heller provided the same argument for the progressive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
A "conservative" interpretation would have limited it to just the wording of the 2nd Amendment where the "militia" is the only reason cited why there is a necessity for the person to be able to "keep and bear" arms.
Constitutional jurisprudence should not be divided into "progressive" and "conservative" interpretations, as if we were merely considering policy preferences. The real categories, instead, are Living Constitution Theory and Originalism. And I fit quite nicely into the latter. |
|
