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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (74431)	7/2/2008 2:29:58 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 543192

If the 1st amendment said that the right would not be limited to only political debate before elections. That's the best argument I've heard yet. Not compelling, but at least not a laugher.

To: TimF who wrote (74431)	7/2/2008 10:51:10 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543192

>>1 - Not the active clause of the statement. Its not something that modifies, limits, or negates the active clause. It would be similar to having a first amendment that said "the need for debate before elections being important, the right of the people to free speech and a free press, shall not be infringed". If the 1st amendment said that the right would not be limited to only political debate before elections. 2 - A justification for the active clause. 3 - The militia IS individual people to a very great extent. The amendment is not "the states have a right to have military organizations", the militia was then, and had long been, ordinary people with their own weapons. Also by current US law most adult males, and some women are also members of the militia.<< Tim - If it doesn't modify, limit, or negate the active clause, what is it there for? How does it not "modify" the active clause? And if the militia IS individual people, in what sense are they, as a militia, well regulated? As for the First Amendment, the fact is that it doesn't say that. The Framers did not seem to feel the need to add an ablative clause to the First Amendment, but they did add one to the Second Amendment. I don't think you've explained why. And I submit that you haven't because you don't fully understand why yourself. And that's the whole problem with the Second Amendment. It's not clear. - Allen