Wednesday, February 15, 2012

If I am only an amateur...

What is legal Eagle45...

I made the following comment:
  1. I have made a post about the English Bill of Rights.

    Maybe you should familiarise yourself better before you pretend to argue it.

    I would also suggest that you not confuse the doctrine of self-defence with national defence. At common law, deadly force was discouraged.

    In fact, its use could render one the aggressor and lead to legal prosecution.

    The problem is, LegalEagle, you are using a shotgun argument.

    You arguments are like tossing spaghetti on the wall hoping that something might stick, but nothing does since you are obviously unclear on this topic.

    If you know anything about US Jurisprudence, then you know full well that Marbury says "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"

    You are saying that the most important clause is "is mere surplusage, is entirely without meaning, if such is to be the construction."

    You are violating the rules of US Constitutional interpretation as set forth by Marbury in your proposed construction,

  2. I should add that Marbury's rule of statutory construction reinforces my position that the proeme is indeed important.

    If it provides the purpose for which the Second Amendment was adopted, then it it highly important to its interpretation.

    You would render the "proeme" mere surplusage" by making the presumption that it has no effect.

    That violates Marbury.

    And if Marbury is no longer valid, then Heller is no longer valid since Marbury is where the concept of Judicial review comes from.

    Judicial review which invalidates popularly passed laws by local citizenry, especially those taxed without representation, were grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

    So much for the Second Amendment being the tool of Liberty--you have led it to be the exact tyranny complained of by the colonials.
Marbury, of course, refers to the case of Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), but more about that after I post LegalEagle45's response to the above.

Marburys Rules of Construction:

"1) "The rights enumerated in this Bill of Rights shall not be construed to limit other rights of the people not therein expressed. For (not to mention the liberal and beneficial manner of Construction which we have a right to) the plain, natural, and obvious meaning of the charter is, to grant and confirm certain Rights, Privileges, and Immunities to all his Majesty's subjects who then did or ever should inhabit that tract of country in America usually called Virginia, according to the Descriptions and Boundaries of the original Charters, not before otherwise appropriated or disposed of by His Majesty's Ancestors." - George Mason, July 1773, Extracts From The Virginia Charters, With Some Remarks On Them Made In The Year 1773"

Thus the rights are construed liberally...

Laci wrote: "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect"

Yep, and you seem to believe the 2nd is without effect, because you can not tell us what the 2nd protects. You say it is obsolete and "irrelevant since 1792", which directly contradicts this presumption.

You are not too good at this Lacy...
Problem, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a very important case in Supreme Court jurisprudence. One doesn't need to go very far to find that out. The first result in my google search was:
Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise ...
a little further down in the results one finds:

Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief Summary
Facts, issue, holding, and rule of law in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison – Case Brief Summary.
I made a post about this case earlier on in response to:
An anonymous idiot, said:

You mention Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), quite a bit.

And for good reason. But anon missed this post: An Interesting Factoid. He also doesn't have an understanding of the fundamentals of Constitutional law.
The problem, LegalEagle45, is that this case is the first one studied in Law School Constitutional Law classes for precisely the reasons I gave in the aforementioned post:
Marbury is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional", a process called judicial review. The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

Since it defined judicial review, it also provided guidelines for that review--the most important of which is the one I keep mentioning--that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect".

According to Marbury, One cannot presume that any language in the Constitution is mere surplusage--is entirely without meaning.

Sorta sad statement about the US educational system that you have to get your civics lessons from a Brit!
LegalEagle, while sounding as if he knows something about the law demonstrates that he does not have one of the extreme basics of US Constitutional law and Supreme Court Jurisprudence--knowledge of the case Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

That is the rough equivalent of not knowing what a stop sign looks like or which side of the road you drive on if you are able to drive a car.

Perhaps, this is why he was consistently making my argument for me through his ignorance.

Yes, LegalEagle, you just made a goal--


And you can't stop doing it.

While this is the most egregious of his mistakes, if one is at all familiar with the law, legal practise, and legal method, one would see that LegalEagle45 consistently got it wrong from citing cases and authorities which supported my case if they didn't just fail to refute it.

I should also add, as a landmark supreme court case, Marbury is actual legal precedent and LegalEagle45's George Mason quote is pure blather. Again, LegalEagle provides a quote which doesn't really make his point, but he keeps hoping that if he quotes lots and lots of people, it might snow the unwary into thinking he has some idea of what he is talking about.

As I said after reading his first response--thanks for making my case for me.

But in this instance, LegalEagle45, you really fucked it.

You fucked it royally.

Whenever I hear someone parrot "individual right, individual right, individual right", it reminds me of this:

Substitute "individual right" for "Brawndo".

One more nail in LegalEagle's coffin:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. Written in 1803 by Chief Justice John Marshall, the decision played a key role in making the Supreme Court a separate branch of government on par with Congress and the executive.

And another from Time:

Top 10 Landmark Supreme Court Cases

It has been 10 years since the concluding chapter of the 2000 election. On Dec. 12, 2000, the Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore — just one decision in a long line of important cases. TIME takes a look at other landmark rulings


  1. Pooch, I'm curious, you say you are a lawyer, so do you tell your clients before they hire you that they have no individual rights?
    orlin sellers

    1. Orlin, Your comments may be deleted because you keep asking idiotic questions such as this which have already been answered many times before.

      Saying something is an individual right is a meaningless statement.

      The issue isn't whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

      Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question.

      The text of the Second Amendment, its history, and the decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provided a clear answer to that question.

      In that case. The Supreme Court upheld a conviction under that the National Firearms Act holding that:

      “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178.

      The view of the Amendment The Court took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

      Repeating it is an individual right over and over is an idiotic statement.

      See also my response below.

    2. DO I need to give you an idiot proof answer, Orlin, so that you will stop asking the same stupid questions over and over?

      Quite frankly, you show a decided lack of comprehension in this matter.

      That is very typical of gunloons to not be able to understand complex concepts and ask idiotic questions.

    3. Laci, you can't seem to understand that rights aren't granted by law or the courts. Some rights are ennumerated therein, but rights come from another source.

  2. Brawndo for Individual right, electrolytes for Heller.

  3. As a juror in this case with the individual right to draw my own conclusions about this debate, clearly, legaleagle was the winner.
    The militia in common terms is armed citizenry made up of individual armed citizens and the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
    orlin sellars

    1. Orlin, we know you are an idiot, please stop confirming that with dumb comments.

      The militia under the Constitution is the body created under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16:

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      Like LegalEagle, Orlin, you don't know when to shut the fuck up because you are making an idiot of yourself.

      And as they say, make a stupid comment, and prepare to be insulted.

      But, you are free to show your ignorance.

      Please join the likes of Greg Camp for being a source of amusement as we engage in the ancient passtime of make fun of the feebleminded.

    2. BTW, I may have deleted your comments because they were incredibly stupid.

      But, MikeB will always post them.

      We like making fun of the feebleminded.

    3. I should add before you get all whiny on us...again, Orlin, that you try rereading the above post.

      Work very hard to try to understand it.

      I know that may be impossible, but give it a go.

      You will realise that you are making an idiot of yourself.

      And that LegalEagle knew fuck all about what he was talking about.

      Now, about that Brawndo, Orlin???

    4. Care to elaborate about the word militia? How about the unorganized, organized, and select militias?

      What are the requirements to be a member of the militia?

    5. Orlin, don't go promoting yourself. You're not a juror in anything here. You're a right wing gun nut commenter.

      I doubt you'd make it past any serious jury selection, because of bias and ignorance.

      Or is it that you are not aware that the SOCTUS doesn't use juries? If you're waiting for that postcard in the mail summoning you to jury duty in D.C., you can stop checking your mail box for that now.

    6. Any group other than an official state militia is just a group of thugs playing with fetish objects in the woods and for the most part spewing incredibly stupid, poorly educated political bullshit. Most of them are no better than domestic terrorists agitating for treasonous insurrection.

      That would include the loonytunes who are currently facing prosecution from Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, as an example.

      I would strongly suggest you do a bit of reading of our nation's history, Crunchy.

      I would refer you to some reading on the 1903 MILITIA ACT which defines the existence of militias in the U.S.:

      "Twentieth CenturyThe Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units, and the "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45, with the exception of certain officials and others, which is codified in 10 U.S.C. § 311. Some states, such as Texas and California, created separate State Defense Forces for assistance in local emergencies. Congress later established [52] a system of "dual enlistment" for the National Guard, so that anyone who enlisted in the National Guard also enlisted in the U.S. Army.[53]"

      That added the only formally recognized REAL militia into the standing army.

      The requirements therefore to be in THE ONLY LEGITIMATE militia is the requirements for service in either the National Guard or Army.

    7. And in case you need any help in learning more about the 1903 Militia Act, wikipedia has a page on it.

      It's also called the Dick Act, but that's named after a general, not a vulgar slang term used for those domestic terrorist paramilitary wanna-bes running around in the woods like a bunch of wackos with delusions of patriotism and power.

    8. Dog gone,

      How about the Framer's perspective in 1780? When they used the word militia what did that mean? What were the requirements to be a member of the militia? Were there unorganized and select militias?

  4. Orlin, That's one of the dumber comments ever made.

    IS the right to assemble an individual right? How can one have an assembly of only one person.

    Saying something is an individual right in and of itself is meaningless, but that goes over your head.

    The real question is not whether the right is god given, pre-existing, natural, individual, collective, civic, and so on.

    The actual issue is does the right exist and what is its applicability?

    I have even had gunloons admit that the "individual right" terminology is so much nonsense.

    But, that never stops you lot from repeating things mindlessly.

    As a lawyer, I work with the law as it is written and properly interpreted--not flights of fancy.

  5. So, you are saying you don't have an individual right to life, as in life, liberty, etc.

    Makes me wonder why they would designate it as the Bill of RIGHTS, in the Law of the Land. Funny that those old, dead guys didn't understand that the people (individuals) that assemble only have a group or collective right to do so.
    orlin sellers

    1. Orlin, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness comes from the Declaration of Independence--not the Bill of Rights.

      The Declaration of Independence is an historic document with no legal value (See article VI).

      As I keep saying,it's fairly obvious that you have no idea of what you are talking about, or even the basics of the Constitution.

      Instead, you talk gibberish like most feebleminded people do.

      I strongly suggest that keep in mind the Chinese proverb, Orlin:

      It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are an idiot, then open it and remove all doubt.

      Your repetition of the same idiotic question does not show any intelligence.

      And the repetition of the same meaningless phrase over and over only adds to that opinion.

    2. Chinese proverb? I didn't know that Mark Twain was Chinese.

  6. Laci - if only one person shows up to a protest does that mean he has no Consitutuional right to be at the protest because it is not an assembly?

    1. And speaking of people who like to ask dumb questions....

      Is that assembly or free speech?

    2. By the way, the reason I get insulting is that I really don't like answering the same stupid question over and over.

      In addition, your question and comments demonstrate that you are unclear on the subject.

      I really don't feel like teaching you.

      And I am not qualified in special education, Orlin.

  7. Leave it up to lawyers and courts to defy common sense. Rifle makers all over the colonies making and selling their products without licenses or regulations and anyone could buy and use one without any government or agent saying a word about it. There were armed subjects before there were militias, which is simply another way of saying armed citizens. Imagine these guys walking around with rifles made right there in the colonies, the Pennsylvania rifle, the Kentucky rifle, etc.
    Then the mean old king declares the people can't be trusted with firearms and then the people get pissed off and say bullshit and fire "the shot heard 'round the world" when they try and take their guns. Well, that little incident causes a war in which we fight for independence. Then we win the war and need to write laws for the new country. After having fought a bloody war in which armed citizens participated, the wise and sagacious fellows who wrote the laws decided that the individuals should not be armed only militias should be armed, even though the citizens were the militias. And then they wrote the law that said only militias rights to guns shall not be infringed but nobody else can have a gun even though we just won a bloody war by the skin of our teeth with the help of our armed citizens.
    Yeah, that makes sense, if yer an idiot.
    orlin sellers

    1. Anonymous, if you believe the 'shot heard round the world' was over gun rights, you must have been edumacated in one of those silly 'southron' states where they rewrite history to suit their whims, like those idiot tea partiers in Tennessee.

      The 'shot heard round the world' was about a conflict over militia weapons, not privately held arms. That was in turn precipitated by the Townsend Acts and the Stamp Act - a group of pieces of legislation sometimes referred to as the Intolerable Acts.

      You're an ill educated idiot, Orlin Sellers.

      Maybe you simply need a better education; try reading the source documents.

      Overwhelmingly, the colonists had English and European rifles, and many of the weapons they did have, at the outbreak of combat hostilities, were not functional. The early weapons were often obtained by stealing them from British armories and other sources.

      The American firearms producers had to play catch up, and their production was not huge. So when you have your little daydream fantasies about the rebles walking around with their 'Merkin're as wet as the Tea Party tea in Boston harbor.

  8. Mikeb, you wanted examples of comments that were blocked. I posted one to this discussion that has yet to appear. What exactly is the policy here?

    Is there a way on Blogger to create memberships on a blog? Those of us who are regulars could join--don't ask me to do it through Facebook, please--and have our comments appear in a timely manner.

  9. DG said, "The 'shot heard round the world' was about a conflict over militia weapons, not privately held arms."

    Militia weapons? What is a militia? As I mentioned somewhere else here, a militia is an armed citizenry, made up of armed citizens.
    Not privately held weapons, you say? According to the history I've read, not every colony was the same, nor the armed citizenry you like to call the militia or the Minutemen. Some were required to furnish their own weapons and sharp-edged swords, hatchets, bayonets. Some locals furnished weapons. So, you can not make that blanket statement honestly.
    Also, it is quite clear that whatever you want to believe about individual rights 'the shot heard round the world' was about the issue of 'gun control' and guess what, the colonists didn't like it one little bit. You might want to read about the Powder Alarm in 1774.
    btw, DG, I wouldn't be so brusque as to call you ill-educated, only miseducated.
    I would also say you are mistaken about an American gun culture, to those colonials those were tools they used everyday.
    So, now what else do you wanna argue about in my previous comment.
    orlin sellers