Discussion: The Second Amendment

[Addendum]

For me, the federalist papers are similar to the mishnah in judaism, in that some people place a lot of value in them when all they are is just commentary.

 

[SuBe]

For me, the federalist papers are similar to the mishnah in judaism, in that some people place a lot of value in them when all they are is just commentary.

How else can people read Egyptian Heiroglyphics without the Rosetta Stone? It is a way for people to read the actual written words of the Founders to know WHY the Constitution and the Freedoms it protects are important. Without knowing what the meaning behind the laws are, they are meaningless.

 

[Addendum]

The Federalist Papers are not the "law of the land". They're opinion.

 

[StorminNorman]

...of the people that wrote the law of the land.

 

[Addendum]

But they are not authoritative. Instead of looking into the opinion of dead men, look at the actual Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, and the US Code.

 

[SuBe]

The Federalist Papers are not the "law of the land". They're opinion.

Opinion written BY THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE THE LAWS. It's them selling the importance of the Constitution. It's like if they make a movie about Batman without ever reading any previous comic, see any previous movie, or read any interview from the creators and just making it based on what you "feel" like it should be. No! These are the founders words. This is them telling you why the country needed the Constitution. If there are any documents that can lead you to know what their intents were, THESE ARE THEM.

 

[Franklin Richards]

Jefferson rewrote the Bible. Are we to gain great insight from that as well?

 

[Paradyme]

The Federalist Papers are not the "law of the land". They're opinion.

...of the people that wrote the law of the land.

But they are not authoritative. Instead of looking into the opinion of dead men, look at the actual Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments, and the US Code.

*scratches head* "That doesn't make any sense."

 

[SuBe]

Jefferson rewrote the Bible. Are we to gain great insight from that as well?

He re-wrote it from a Historical prespective that removed all of the Christian "Mumbo-jumbo" and "Magic" as he called it. Maybe you could.

 

[moraldeficiency]

If we are talking about the intent behind the law then looking into the opinions of the lawmakers is relevant.

 

[Addendum]

The Constitution has long since been sold, since it was ratified in 1788. Plus, the federalist papers are not a source of law for the US. The Constitution is, the US Code is, the Executive Orders are, the Supreme Court Cases are.

 

[Addendum]

*scratches head* "That doesn't make any sense."

What, that I actually would like to look at the laws themselves, instead of commentaries about them?

 

[Franklin Richards]

If we are talking about the intent behind the law then looking into the opinions of the lawmakers is relevant.

Their opinions were based on hypocrisy. All men are created equal. Now tell my slave to get me a sandwich.

I say we leave their opinions alone and concentrate on their work.

 

[SuBe]

The Constitution has long since been sold, since it was ratified in 1788. Plus, the federalist papers are not a source of law for the US. The Constitution is, the US Code is, the Executive Orders are, the Supreme Court Cases are.

Why do the Supreme Court Justicies read the Federalist Papers for intent? Why do they teach the Federalist Papers in Constitutional Law?

 

[moraldeficiency]

Their opinions were based on hypocrisy. All men are created equal. Now tell my slave to get me a sandwich.

I say we leave their opinions alone and concentrate on their work.

I would say it's based on isolated periodic viewpoints some of which are no longer relevant. Remember back then blacks didn't count as full people.

If you're trying to interpret intent and the law isn't crystal clear you either look into the lawmakers or decide on the matter yourself based on our own isolated periodic viewpoints but there is no other option. You can't make the law explain itself, but it's fairly obvious what the intent was based on the fact we just had a ****ing revolution.

 

[Paradyme]

What, that I actually would like to look at the laws themselves, instead of commentaries about them?

No, because you discredit the commentaries of the Founding Fathers and think that the ones who wrote the Constitution wrote it for you to interpret or for the future generations to 'interpret'. Like they wanted it to be some huge mystery what they meant by it. If they spelled it out for you in a commentary, why discredit it? If its not law its sure as **** relevant.

 

[Addendum]

The federalist papers are not law. They're opinion. Boo hoo if I "discredit" them, instead of placing them on some ****ing pedestal

 

[moraldeficiency]

But all you're giving is your own opinion on laws you had no part of writing. So you're opinion is a hell of a lot more worthless than the actual writers of the law, right?

 

[SuBe]

But all you're giving is your own opinion on laws you had no part of writing. So you're opinion is a hell of a lot more worthless than the actual writers of the law, right?

I would agree to this. These are the actual written words from the people that wrote the Constitution. I trust that they knew what they were talking about.

 

[Paradyme]

The federalist papers are not law. They're opinion. Boo hoo if I "discredit" them, instead of placing them on some ****ing pedestal

Of people who influenced and wrote the Constitution.

 

[Addendum]

But all you're giving is your own opinion on laws you had no part of writing. So you're opinion is a hell of a lot more worthless than the actual writers of the law, right?

I'm not saying that my opinion is worth more. Just that compared to the law, all opinions are worthless

 

[moraldeficiency]

I'm not saying that my opinion is worth more. Just that compared to the law, all opinions are worthless

Oh agreed, but that said as the law isn't specifically spelled out we're interpretting it. So no matter what we're deciding this based on opinions, to say otherwise is just false. The actual writers of the law made their opinions clear, now they didn't put an official stamp on the papers, but the opinions of the men that wrote the constitution are there. To simply disregard them and just go with our own seems to be just creating a reality where you get what you want. The opinions of the makers of the laws have to hold more credibility than what we want them to mean.

 

[SuBe]

Stop making so much sense Moral.

 

[Addendum]

Just apply the laws to today, and go from there, instead of wondering what dead people would have done in the 18th century.

 

[SuBe]

Just apply the laws to today, and go from there, instead of wondering what dead people would have done in the 18th century.

So, you believe in the "living" Document that is the Constitution?