|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
If corporations are "people" then how come we don't prosecute BP for killing a dozen rig workers, or Ford Motors for burning teenagers up in Pintos; and then putting the whole board of directors on death row?
Either they are people and have personal rights on the one hand and can be sanctioned for wrong doings just like a person; or their not. But they are indicted, or can be. And are responsible for the actions (both civil and criminal) of their employees under the legal theory of respondeat superior. Which means that if a member of the board of directors, or an executive(say)commits a criminal act in the course of his employment which is related to the corporations business, both the individual and the corporation, can be indicted. A corporation is considered a legal person in the eyes of the law. It can contract,sue or be sued,carry on any legal business the same as any individual. And it can be indicted. Interesting dialogue here; but we are covering really old, well settled law. To the last point: yes, and no. How "yes" and how "no"? 
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058 |
It isn't that the Constitution lacks clarity. The problem is people trying to twist into something it is not, saying things it does not say. Exactly And who is to say what it doesn't say. That is why we need a new one. So we all have a say in what it says. You are truly congenitally stupid. "Ignore" was made for you, as continuing to read your unconscionable level of ignorance wastes valuable brain cells. The Bill of Rights needs much more clarity, especially the 9th and 10th amendments, but some of the others as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 8,900 |
Again, the Constitution needs more "clarity" ONLY if you disagree with what it says, and wish to interpret it in a way that does not support the original intent. Take the 2nd amendment, for example. It clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Most of the gun laws do exactly that, and though the Constitution remains unchanged, the 2nd amendment is NOT being followed. The gun laws in question are quite simply, unconstitutional and illegal. Not that that makes any difference at all to the left.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058 |
What is its original intent? The only way you can attempt a guess at its original intent is to "interpret" it, as nobody is around to ask.
The second amendment says more than that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also says that A well regarded militia, being necessary to the security of a free state . . . . .
Was that put in there to mean nothing. Or does it mean that a state has to be a free state in the sense that it has no slavery? Or does it mean that a state has to have a militia and you can only have guns if you are in the militia?
And has that amendment been specifically determined to apply to the states by way of the 14th amendment? If so, what does the specific case say about it.
Its an old amendment. It should be completely updated by people living today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
22: You need to catch up.
In District of Columbia v Heller, the 2nd Amendment was determined by the Supreme Court to protect an individual,not collective (militia), right to keep and bear arms.
In McDonald v. Chicago those rights were deemed to be binding on the states pursuant to the 14th amendment.
What you seem to be missing is that the Constitution was never intended by its wording to cover every single experience of human existence,and interaction. Rather it was intended to limit the power of government,set the framework for that government,and provide general guiding principles based on our political philosophy.
By making it very hard to change or amend, it was intended to be protected against the whims and fancies of nitwits who think it should be "flexible" and a "living document". Based on what I see of current generations, I would not ever trust them with it.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,058 |
And perhaps the current generation does not trust older generations with it either.
Thank you for the case sites. You are correct, I need to catch up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
I like to think the document protects us against ourselves.  
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
|
710 members (10gaugeman, 10Glocks, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 1234, 69 invisible),
3,519
guests, and
1,195
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,271
Posts18,467,379
Members73,925
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
