search results matching tag: never wet
» channel: weather
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
- 1
| Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (2) |
- 1
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
| Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (2) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Bill Maher: Who Needs Guns?
newtboyEDIT: According to 'separation of powers...and the roles defined for each branch, the Judicial has full power to interpret the laws as they interpret them. Period.
Exactly....but now it's been re-interpreted to give a right to a single individual...300000000 times.
Yes, you could, but that militia must be well regulated (which doesn't mean it never wets the bed or cries about it's parents being mean) before it meets the criteria to be protected...technically.
Your contention that "regulated" as a legal term actually means/meant "adjusted", as if a "well adjusted militia" was a phrase that makes any sense, or did back then, makes no sense. You may continue to claim it, I will continue to contradict it. Unless you have some written description by a founding father saying exactly that, it's just, like, your opinion...man. Try reading "Miracle at Philadelphia" for context.
If Y and Z didn't exist, but are incredibly similar to X, then it's reasonable to interpret laws to include Y and Z....if they existed and were not EXCLUDED, it's up to the judicial to interpret meaning...the less clear they are in meaning, the more power they give the judicial. Today, congress is as unclear as possible, and complain constantly that they are interpreted 'wrong'.
It's not a simple matter to make any law today....no matter how clear the need is for a law or how reasonable and universally the concept is accepted. Sadly. It SHOULD be a simple matter. It's not.
The court never "jumps the gun". They only interpret/re-interpret laws that are challenged, and a reasonable challenge means the law is in some way open to interpretation.
Parsing words is fine.
Persons vs people is moot. People = multiple persons. Unless your intent is to give a right to a single individual, you're always dealing with people.
The flip side is that if the 2nd amendment only protects militias and their armament, then it protects militias. So you are free to start a militia and get armed.
(Again, by 1791 parlance, well regulated meant well adjusted. There is no prerequisite for government regulation re the 1791 English it was written in.).
"well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" doesn't work when :
- Y and Z did not even exist at the time of X.
- Y and Z did exist, and the writers chose not to include them.
In either case, you end up legislating from the bench.
It's a simple matter to make a new law covering Y and Z. There is no need for a court to jump the gun. Just find the case by the classic scope, and inform the legislature of the circumstances so they can take it into consideration. Heck, there is no guarantee that they even want the scope expanded.
-scheherazade
Chuck Norris' Inner Monologue: "Oh My God, Ninjas!"
shuac>> ^kronosposeidon:
The first person to make a Chuck Norris joke will get my next 5 downvotes.
Go ahead, Krono, I am not afraid.
Chuck Norris never wet his bed as a child. The bed wet itself out of fear.