(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "
[etc]

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)


Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.

-scheherazade

The role is to interpret whether or not actions are in compliance with the written law - not to interpret new meanings/definitions of the law.

Changing definitions within a law alters the law, rewrites it, which makes it legislative activity. That's outside of judicial scope.

You can summarize the thought pattern as : "We know the law says this one thing, but we think this other thing should apply, so instead of waiting for a change to the law [so that it will apply], we will just say it applies already, even though it's not written."

It's sheer laziness, complacency, and acceptance that allows that sort of activity to be. It also creates a minefield of possible offenses that are not created by elected representatives, and are not documented in any way that would allow a person to avoid violation.




You are forgetting the current laws that restrict gun ownership. Not anyone can own a gun - even though the 2nd makes no exceptions. Laws that violate constitutional law are left to stand all the time, simply because people are ok with it.



The constitution also denies the government the authority to limit assembly - but that freedom has been interpreted to be secondary. It is in practice restricted by a permit process that makes any non-approved assembly subject to government disbandment.
It's supposed to allow people (i.e. the state) to communicate, organize, and form a disruptive group that is able to cause enough disruption to the government that the state can force a disobedient government to behave - without having to resort to violence.
But, because people are universally inconvenienced by folks that are protesting about things they don't care about, they would rather the government keep those folks out of their way. So freedom of assembly goes to the wayside.


Basically, the 'system' takes the law only as seriously as is convenient. When it's useful to be literal, it's treated literal. When it's useful to be twisted, it's twisted. It's just whatever is useful/convenient/populist/etc to the people executing the process.




Eminent is not a word you would use on today's parlance to say that something is obvious.

Ask most people what eminent domain is, and they will recite a legal concept. Ask them what the words themselves mean, and most will draw a blank. Few will say 'it is a domain that sticks-out'.

The point was just to illustrate how things change regarding how people express themselves. It's not strange to hear someone describe something as 'well adjusted'. But if they said 'well regulated' instead, you would think they mean something else. You wouldn't think that they are just speaking in 1700's English.

Imagine writing a law that states that only 'well adjusted' people are allowed to drive cars. Then imagine 200 years from now, 'adjustment' is a reference to genetic engineering. You'll end up with people arguing that only well genetically engineered people can drive.

-scheherazade

"except that it's generally accepted that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech supersede trespassing laws"

"...generally accepted..."? Is that like "It's basically a food product"? I'd say it's generally accepted that if you break the law, and are told that you will be arrested if you persist, and you choose to persist, you shouldn't be surprised if you are arrested.

except that it's generally accepted that freedom of assembly and freedom of speech supersede trespassing laws.

>> ^bobknight33:

NetRunner, your too smart to be sucked in by this crap. What gives?


This is polling data. And I'm a yes on all of those things.

What's harmful about taxing millionaires? What's harmful about letting the upper-end of the Bush tax cuts expiring? What's harmful about removing a subsidy to obviously successful business like the oil and coal companies?

Most importantly, why should anyone lose the right to organize and collectively bargain? Don't people have a 1st amendment right to freedom of assembly? Don't they have the right to negotiate and enter into contracts without government interference?

>> ^blankfist:

If the unions wish to organize and be persuasive, that's one thing. They can easily make compelling arguments if they're worth what they're asking for. But if they wish to have government set rules in an industry, that's protectionism. And that's unfair.

So you believe it's unfair.

What does that mean as far as their rights are concerned? Are you opposed to letting them have the right to engage in political speech and assembly, because you don't think what they advocate is fair?

Are you opposed to letting them have the right to collectively bargain, because you disagree with their politics?

>> ^blankfist:
Government intervention is wrong because it unfairly tips the playing field. And when a group or individual uses the government in that way, I can safely condemn them for being self-interested scumbags just as I condemn the legislators for being coercive and violent scumbags. It has zero to do with their right to free speech.


But it does. I'm allowed to lobby congress to pass a law that requires pastafarians to be shot on sight. I'm allowed to lobby congress to nuke France. I'm definitely allowed to lobby congress to tighten worker safety laws, or pass comprehensive health care reform.

You're allowed to lobby against me on that if you like, or write a blog post about how my "Pastafarian Elimination Act" is blatantly unconstitutional.

What you're not allowed to do, as a libertarian (or liberal), is support the government taking away my other rights because you don't like what I'm saying politically. You shouldn't be advocating that the state revoke liberals' rights to own a gun, their right to not incriminate themselves, their right to habeas corpus, or their right to engage in collective bargaining agreements, no matter what they say or do.

So here's my point, straight up: you shouldn't be supporting the government taking away unions' collective bargaining rights as punishment for them exercising their right to free speech in ways you disagree with. At least, not as long as you hold yourself to be someone who believes that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are fundamental human rights.

>> ^NetRunner:

Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?


Pressure [presh-er] –verb (used with object)
to force (someone) toward a particular end; influence:

That's from dictionary.com, though I'm not sure why you couldn't look it up yourself. Why would I have a problem with people exercising a right to free speech or assembly?

I don't want people (singular or in a collective) using the violent apparatus of government to satisfy their own selfish ends. If they want to assemble and try to apply pressure to their employer through nonviolent persuasion, that's one thing. But when people use government to restrict industries, it always results in protectionism which is bad.

>> ^blankfist:

I don't know the details of what's going on in Wisconsin, but why would anyone disturb a people's right to peacefully assemble and bargain for better working situations and pay?

I don't know. He says he's doing it for fiscal reasons, but that doesn't really hold water since they've agreed to all the wage & benefit cuts he asked for.
>> ^blankfist:
As long as the unions aren't applying pressure to legislators to create laws in their favors, then who cares, right? Or is that what's really going on here?


Define "pressure". Certainly you don't object to people exercising their 1st amendment rights, do you? You know, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and all that?

>> ^Enzoblue:

Ok, so did he say that the reason democracy allows the freedom of assembly is so that the leaders can see all there enemies in one place?


No, he was saying democracies value freedom of assembly because democracies require freedom of assembly to form. Everyone needs to know that other people feel the same way they do because it gives you collective power. If a group of people want to form a different type of government, they must first collectively agree that the current government is crappy, and you can't do that without the freedom to group up and communicate.

Obviously, increasing connectedness through communications technology is having quite an effect on that whole "I know that they know that I know" thing. Not only does information spread quickly, but the knowledge that other people know the same things you know also spreads faster than it ever has in the past.

Ok, so did he say that the reason democracy allows the freedom of assembly is so that the leaders can see all there enemies in one place?

@xxovercastxx I think you're failing to understand mine.

I agree with your point about people making sure to stand up for what rights they're supposedly entitled to. Nobody's against that, as near as I can tell.

What I'm saying is that if you define freedom as something nobody can take away from you, then you have to follow that to the logical extension of that, which is that government cannot take it away from you, and furthermore no one in history has ever had their freedom taken away, even slaves.

It's a semantic issue, but I think an important one. The way I see it, you only have freedom when you actually have the ability to exercise it without having to acquire some authority's permission.

"Freedom of speech" is a funny thing. You can still get fired for voicing honest opinions. You can still get arrested for trespassing on someone's property (i.e. assembling in protest where people don't want you protesting). You can have your ideas vilified or ignored by the elites who control the flows of information. You can even be the victim of character assassination so that no one listens to what you have to say.

When people talk about "freedom of speech", they're usually not talking about actual freedom to act without submitting to some outside authority, but instead this very narrow promise from the government that it won't jail you for saying something it disapproves of. It doesn't even really hold true to its own promise all the time.

Do you have freedom of speech, or do you just have some legal right (i.e. something the government promises you can claim when it does arresting you) known as "freedom of speech"?

Liberals look at this as an exercise of making sure the government keeps its promises, and whether it makes sense for government to take action to increase the scope of your actual freedom of speech.

Conservatives often look at this as if the scope of government is the only determinant for freedom. Government "can't" pass laws that limit your freedom of speech (because it promises not to!), but likewise government can't pass laws that force privately owned corporations to respect the freedom of assembly and speech of people who take issue with what they've been doing. To do otherwise is to take away our freedoms!

(But they can't be taken away, so that's silly...)

Your video, Freedom of Assembly Takes it in the Wrong Hole, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
Just a few points...

Saying that the guy is an ass and should have chosen another method of protest is not the same as saying that it should be illegal for him to protest. He's "free" to be an ass, and others are "free" to point out how counterproductive it is.

Freedom of assembly does not include freedom to obstruct government business. They are within their rights to ask him to leave the building... he can go outside and protest all he wants.

Pestering the clerks is pointless. It's like bitching at an army private about the invasion of Iraq, or a Wal-Mart stocker about the price of an item.

As far as the military, soldiers are only required to follow "legal" orders. If a person's commander orders them to do something illegal then the person is not required to do it. However, that doesn't mean that the soldier has any control over which legal orders are issued.


well said,
there were a few others that pointed that out far better than i did.
but hey..
if i wasnt being just one big run-on sentence,then i wouldnt be me =)

Just a few points...

Saying that the guy is an ass and should have chosen another method of protest is not the same as saying that it should be illegal for him to protest. He's "free" to be an ass, and others are "free" to point out how counterproductive it is.

Freedom of assembly does not include freedom to obstruct government business. They are within their rights to ask him to leave the building... he can go outside and protest all he wants.

Pestering the clerks is pointless. It's like bitching at an army private about the invasion of Iraq, or a Wal-Mart stocker about the price of an item.

As far as the military, soldiers are only required to follow "legal" orders. If a person's commander orders them to do something illegal then the person is not required to do it. However, that doesn't mean that the soldier has any control over which legal orders are issued.

Freedom of assembly is hard to handle for the law enforcement establishment. But that's freedom, so suck it up because that's exactly what you swore to protect. It's the first freekin' amendment you fools.

"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."