Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye
This may sound reasonable to the untrained eye but I'm not so easily fooled. You see, this claim contains a glaring flaw.
The constitution was created to establish a set of standards that the government is assigned to enforce. Thus the concept of the rule of law. This is intended to keep the peace while preventing the government from exceeding their role. You claim that all interpretations are equal when discerning what the constitution means? Utter nonsense and this is why: If we go by that logic, we can make the constitution mean anything we want to. There's the flaw.
A document that can mean anything, means nothing and is thus worthless.
There's no two ways about the bit about the right to bear arms, it is as clear as crystal: Government can't disarm the public. Period!
The bit about free speech? Very clear too. People have the right to speak their mind and nobody gets a say otherwise.
You have a right to engage in fair trade with anyone you choose, whenever you choose and in what manner you choose. Nobody gets to veto it.
It's as simple as ABC and clear as a bell. Sneaking in alternate takes on it is dishonest and really quite vile when you get right down to it. So spare me the moral high ground nonsense because you're doing nothing more than making excuses for the freedom hating weasels.
I know you won't but if anyone reading this is interested in learning more about the constitution, I highly recommend this lecture series
The second part talks about interprating the constitution. Very informative |
So, does the fact that I started watching your video as a matter of curiosity before I even realized the childish little slam mean that what you "know" is wrong. In this case, sure. In other cases, I suppose not. The blind arrogance and cheap character assassination is pretty funny, though.
If you would be so kind as to not cherry-pick the premises as my argument and deny the conclusion and everything else, you might see that there is no suggestion they are equal arguments.Though both sides believe they work within the bounds of the Constitution (the original point you no longer seem wiling to debate), one must be an incorrect interpretation. As I have said 3 times now, there constitutionally mandated authority in determining which position does adhere to constitutional law, the Supreme Court. I'm not excusing the arguments so much as saying that those arguing are not "freedom-hating weasels" as much as they may just have an incorrect understanding of what is and is not constitutional.
Eerily, I had already established a problem with the video's argument of final constitutional arbitration lying with the people before even watching it. The people can have among them competing interpretations of the Constitution and not be able to come unanimous decision of something being unconstitutional even when it is. He even contends that many people (lawyers, politicians, legal scholars, laymen) hold interpretations that differ from his own, yet expects them to be the final authority on upholding his interpretation, defying his own stance. Additionally, he conveniently omits, in his little scenario, that the jury can fail to deem a law is unconstitutional, which then allows the convicted to appeal to higher courts where it will be deemed whether it is constitutional or not by either an existing precedent or direct ruling from the Supreme Court.
I appreciate the effort in the video, it does share clarifications and ideas that are meaningful. However, his take on constitutional interpretation boils down to, "this is the only interpretation I can personally develop with my qualifiers, therefore all other interpretations must be wrong." Unfortunately, that is pretty much the argument everyone else makes in asserting their interpretations, so he really doesn't get any special assumption that his is right.