Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (94253)	1/8/2005 9:45:22 AM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793756

As I said, that end of the debate has been settled for a couple of generations. there was just no way the framers of the Constitution could ever imagine that you could someday develop nuclear weapons that could be hand held

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (94253)	1/8/2005 10:15:26 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793756

My initial thoughts are that the framers of the Constitution wanted the people to have the ability to overthrow the government if the government no longer served the people. I believe exactly the opposite. Arming the people was intended to prevent the overthrow of our government. History provides numerous examples of how first disarming the general population led to overthrowing a government. The most heavily armed country in Europe is the only one that has not been conquered since Julius Caesar. It is Switzerland, where every able bodied man is still trained with and required to keep a rifle and ammo at home.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (94253)	1/8/2005 10:34:02 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793756

Nevertheless, we would still have to guess as to what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held. There you have it, in a nutshell. That's the best, most succinct, explanation of Constitutional interpretation I've read. I am going to save it for future reference. We have to guess, not just about what they would have thought about the future, but what they thought about their own present.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (94253)	1/10/2005 8:40:01 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793756

Nevertheless, we would still have to guess as to what the framers of the Constitution would have wrote if they knew what the future held. Such a guess may be a matter of academic or personal interest, but I don't see how its actually relevant to constitutional law. If changes happen that the writers of the constitution could not have or other wise did not foresee we have the ability to change the constitution. The did foresee their lack of perfect foresight <g> and they allowed for it. Tim