GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-14-2007, 21:17   #51
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreatGonzo
Dauntless,
I love your avatar!
Gonzo
Thanks Gonzo!

About 3 months after I joined GT, I did a google search for "avatar," and found the jolly roger on one of the sites that came up.

__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2007, 21:38   #52
Norman
CLM Number 32
Non nobis
 
Norman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 17,042
Nolo - you know I stand behind you on this all the way. Let me share something with you that I realized for myself some time ago.

I once came to a conclusion a few years back, probably during my first year of college... my conclusion was that many people talk about working on your weaknesses to make you a better overall rounded individual. I think that's a load of left-thinking liberal arts crap. I think it's more beneficial to take your strengths and make them even stronger. To hell with your weaknesses, they won't make you anything. Your strengths will.

So what's my point with that tidbit of insight? These naysayers are weakness. Don't waste your time trying to bring them up to a certain level, or try to convince them to see something. Forget them. Look at your strengths - the people who believe in you - and fortify them, and they will take you to the next level.

Just my opinion.
Norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 12:15   #53
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
I'm currently enrolled in Constitutional Law in Law School. In the cases I've read, the supremacy clause has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States to have been included in our Constitution in order to cement the preeminence of federal law when it comes into conflict with state law. I'm unaware of any holding by the Supreme Court that the clause enumerates any grant of power in the Congress to legislate. If you could provide me with a case cite to the contrary, I'd be happy admit to being incorrect.

In case you're interested in the Constitutional source of Congress' power, take a look at Article I. In particular the interstate commerce clause. The Supreme Court has allowed the expansion of the scope of Congress' power to legislate on a great many subjects based on this part of the Constitution.

You made an assertion, based on insufficient knowledge, assuming said assertion wouldn't be challenged, you were wrong. It's ok. No need for hostility.
Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2007, 12:23   #54
walangkatapat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Orygun
Posts: 7,711
Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Background checks don't "catch" criminals. They stop guns from getting into the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

Thats worked well.
__________________
"Gun Control is Only to Protect Those in Power"
walangkatapat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 02:08   #55
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Whoa there sport. Don't try to take things out of context in some vain attempt at winning an internet argument.

Follow along with what was said and maybe then you can understand. Nolo, was attempting to purport a message that the Constitition was the Supreme Law of the Land and that Laws put into place by sitting Senators and Representatives since are somehow inferior.

The Supremecy Clause, as held in Article VI, paragraph 2 states, explicitly, that all Laws of the United States shall be the Supreme Law of the Land. Try to work with the subjects at hand and stop arguing tangent material that doesn't apply.

I don't have a college degree. Maybe got 2 full years of courses from a junior college. But, I also don't need to use it as a crutch to support an ill-informed position.
The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 09:31   #56
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
The laws passed by the Congress are subordinate to the Constitution. I'll cite the text again.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof....."

Note the language. Particularly, "in pursuance thereof," this part of the sentence subjugates the laws passed by the Congress to the textual enumerations of power contained in the Constitution. The Constitution and the laws passed by the Congress, do indeed work in conjunction. You are however, misinterpreting the purpose of the Supremacy Clause. Again, the purpose of said clause was to resolve any issue that may arise when the laws enacted by the States came into conflict with those of the Federal Government. Your position is untenable. In support of these assertions, see Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 and McCullough v. Maryland,
17 U.S. 316. These two Supreme Court opinions, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall, remain good case law.

If you are in fact coming to your conclusions based on your own interpretation of the Constitution, fine. If you are asserting that the positions you are taking are in accord with those of the Supreme Court of the United States, however, I'd ask you to provide us with case law backing up said positions. Once again, I'd be happy to admit to being in error.
Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 15:38   #57
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Which part do you not get? The Supreme Law of the Land including Federal Statutes or the fact that you obviously have no grasp on the discussion at hand?

BTW, you are making your little attempt at quoting case law. So chew on this. From your cited case Gibbons v. Ogden, John Marshall wrote "In every such case, the act of Congress, or the treaty, is supreme; and the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield to it."


I am not misinterpreting anything. The words are there and have been there since first being written.

Make an attempt to read through the posts and try to resolve the issue at hand, and then admit your error. I purported 2 DIFFERENT things. That NOLO was incorrect by not including Federal Statutes as The Supreme Law of the Land and SECONDLY, and completely separately, that Congress has the power to enact those Federal Statutes that further define certain aspects that are laid out in the Constitution, along with establishing entirely new statutes that provide for the betterment and protection of society. Also learned in grade school, the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution, allows the Judicial Branch to determine if and when those statutes crosses the line. To suggest that anyone expected the Constitution itself to remain as is and be the Supreme Law without revision or addition such as Federal Statutes, would be utterly stupid. It's called the framework for a reason. If you will allow me my leeway with layman's interpretations.

Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2007, 17:09   #58
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
Correct, federal law is the supreme law when it comes in conflict with state law.

Second, I neither attempted to, nor did I quote anything from the cases I mentioned. What I did was to successfully cite two cases that supported my position. You then quoted text from the case that supported said position; Federal law is supreme over state law.

You aren't misinterpreting anything? how about this quote from one of your earlier posts? "I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." The Supremacy Clause doesn't provide Congress any power.....Article 1 primarily does...the Supremacy Clause, as I've stated and you've reinforced w/ a quote from Gibbons, provides resolution when federal and state law come in conflict.

Nolo didn't have to include federal law in his statement as it was contextually irrelevant. He was stating that he believed certain laws were unconstitutional. If said laws are unconstitutional, they are therefore not made "in pursuance" of the Constitution and wouldn't qualify as supreme under the supremacy clause, as they were facially invalid.

Of course Congress has the power to legislate under the powers enumerated under Article 1. I don't recall disagreeing with you there. You state that you learned in grade school that the judiciary has the power to review legislation to determine what "crosses the line." To what line do you refer? If you are indicating that the Constitution draws that line, then you are correct. Thus federal law, although supreme in opposition to state law, is subordinate to the Constitution of the United States. Who would suggest that Congress was expected not to make and pass laws? Why in the world would the framers had given them the powers to legislate over the subjects they did in Article 1 (as opposed to Article 6 as you had asserted) had they intended for Congress not to legislate in regards to those subjects? I don't recall making any assertion that would indicate that Congress did not enjoy the power to make laws......unless of course those laws conflict with the Constitution.

As to your veiled insults......."Also learned in grade school," etc. Other than this paragraph, don't expect me to respond to them. I would prefer it if you would attempt to keep the discourse civil, but if you choose not to, you are on your own. I do take comfort however in knowing that generally people do not resort to that type of behavior in a disagreement unless they are finding the merits of their arguments lacking.


Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 02:00   #59
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
Nolo specifically said, "Have you entertained the idea of amending our Constitution, which is the Supreme law of the land?"

and the context of this was about Federal Laws that restrict and control certain gun ownership.

Instead of continuing arguing because you are butthurt, simple do what you said you would do and admit to your error.
He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 07:31   #60
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
He did and it is.

Correct.

I am butthurt? Simple do what I said I would do and admit my error (did you mean simply)? You lost me there, Paragon. Just like you've lost this particular debate.
See, you can not admit it. You are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and being "picky" because you have nothing else.

He did and it isn't, period. You simply do not understand because you obviously don't have the capacity to. You can't state something to be absolutely without including it's entirety, especially when it's entirety is hugely part of the subject. ie - Federal Statutes. Federal Statutes are not subordinate to the Constitution until tested and decided so. That was set forth in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a framework for a government, not just a system of law. The system of law is a continued entity.

Therefore, to state it's the Supreme Law of the Land without including the rest of the text is either stupid, or it's what people absolutely hate attorneys for. They choose to ignore what is specifially written in one case, all the while, they hold the very word-for-word written text in another.

The ultimate in hypocrisy. Enjoy it.
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 14:11   #61
Dauntless452003
Senior Member
 
Dauntless452003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kansas
Posts: 846


Quote:
Originally posted by PARAGON
See, you can not admit it. You are doing nothing but arguing for the sake of arguing and being "picky" because you have nothing else.

He did and it isn't, period. You simply do not understand because you obviously don't have the capacity to. You can't state something to be absolutely without including it's entirety, especially when it's entirety is hugely part of the subject. ie - Federal Statutes. Federal Statutes are not subordinate to the Constitution until tested and decided so. That was set forth in the Constitution itself. The Constitution is a framework for a government, not just a system of law. The system of law is a continued entity.

Therefore, to state it's the Supreme Law of the Land without including the rest of the text is either stupid, or it's what people absolutely hate attorneys for. They choose to ignore what is specifially written in one case, all the while, they hold the very word-for-word written text in another.

The ultimate in hypocrisy. Enjoy it.
I've said I'd admit error if you could provide case law contrary to what I've asserted. You have responded not with case cites, but blather....you did however provide a portion of Marshall's opinion in Gibbons that supported my position, which I thank you for.

I think I've adequately explained the supremacy clause of the Constitution, including Supreme Court decisions to back it up. I'm done w/ you PARAGON, I'll not respond to anymore of your posts in this thread ***UNLESS*** you can cite a decision by an Article 3 court.......ANY decision to back up that which you assert. Otherwise, I'll let the readers of this thread decide whose argument has merit.

Before I go, however I do want to post one more time for the sake of posterity, my favorite PARAGON quote from this thread................"I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." I'm thinking of adding it as my signature line...................

You may have the last word, sir.
__________________
G17, G19, G21sf, G26, G30sf G31 & G32
HK P2000 .40 & HK USPc 9mm
Dauntless452003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2007, 14:39   #62
PARAGON
.
 
PARAGON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Jackson, MS USA
Posts: 257


Quote:
Originally posted by Dauntless452003
I've said I'd admit error if you could provide case law contrary to what I've asserted. You have responded not with case cites, but blather....you did however provide a portion of Marshall's opinion in Gibbons that supported my position, which I thank you for.

I think I've adequately explained the supremacy clause of the Constitution, including Supreme Court decisions to back it up. I'm done w/ you PARAGON, I'll not respond to anymore of your posts in this thread ***UNLESS*** you can cite a decision by an Article 3 court.......ANY decision to back up that which you assert. Otherwise, I'll let the readers of this thread decide whose argument has merit.

Before I go, however I do want to post one more time for the sake of posterity, my favorite PARAGON quote from this thread................"I suggest you re-read Article VI, Clause 2 which provides Congress the powers to write laws to keep society stable." I'm thinking of adding it as my signature line...................

You may have the last word, sir.
You fail miserably at simple reading comprehension. If the Supremacy Clause, which makes the Federal Statutes a part of the Supreme Law of the Land.... NOT JUST FOR THE SINGLE SAKE OF OVER-RIDING STATE LAWS, in no way provides Congress the power in direct contrast to Nolo's contention that the ATF is the most un-Constitutional entity, then you have absolutely no business being in law school.

no wait.... You want to only pick out part out of the context of the entire thread so that you can justify your entry into the thread with your posts that have not merit to what was even being discussed.

You have provided a non-argument.

Admit to the error. I don't have you in court, don't need to cite cases and really don't have to prove anything to show that you simply are arguing something that has nothing to do with what was discussed.

Either you are just dumb, bull-headed or have your head so far up Nolo's ass that you won't admit that you were wrong in jumping into the conversation and attacking a simple comment and taking it out of context.

BTW, if you want to play internet games. Please do, I'm quite fun to play with and love juvenile games.
__________________
Dauntless452003 - e-lawyer rejected from 15 different law schools

Last edited by PARAGON; 09-23-2007 at 14:57..
PARAGON is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:19.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,032
342 Members
690 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42