7 minutes ago, TEW said:

Do "we?”

The entire point of the living constitution is to not do this.

That said, I agree with your point. The nuance here is in the context of European history where religion was commingled with state power and often forced on people. Is anyone forcing a religion on you by giving money to a private school you are not forced to attend?

Sure, you could argue that, and I’d even be sympathetic to the argument, but then you have to apply that to all the money spent by the government concerning the entire first amendment. I don’t want my tax dollars going to PBS, Raytheon, Planned Parenthood, etc. It becomes a veto on virtually all government spending.

 

I think that traditionally, we do, at least within the context of academics and lawyers who study and work with these issues. If anything, though, I think that this would more or less pertain to an originalist's perspective: Being concerned specifically with what the words in the Constitution meant at the time by using the founding generation's own understanding of it. The idea of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document" seems to often be at variance with this, because that view gives more credence to the adaptability of the document to the times. But I often go back to these kinds of sources because they seem like a good starting point to maybe help find some common ground. A lot of times when you read the opinions of originalists, they frequently appeal to 18th-Century tracts like the Federalist Papers.

But the issue at hand here is the use of public monies to fund religious activities. The organizations you mention are not religious institutions, so I don't see how they're analogous.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

I’m still trying to figure out what we’re locking and loading about

 

 

20 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Fair enough.

Do tell. Are you still a Trump supporter?

Answer for me 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think that traditionally, we do, at least within the context of academics and lawyers. If anything, though, I think that this would more or less pertain to an originalist's perspective: Being concerned specifically with what the words in the Constitution meant at the time by using the founding generation's own understanding of it. The idea of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document" seems to often be at variance with this, because that view gives more credence to the adaptability of the document to the times. But I often go back to these kinds of sources because they seem like a good starting point to maybe help find some common ground. A lot of times when you read the opinions of originalists, they frequently appeal to 18th-Century tracts like the Federalist Papers.

But the issue at hand here is the use of public monies to fund religious activities. The organizations you mention are not religious institutions, so I don't see how they're analogous.

The argument is essentially that the first amendment protects you from funding religious activities because we have freedom of religion.
 

But the first amendment also protects freedom of speech. So by the same token, the government can’t support an entity which espouses views contrary to your own.

8 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Answer for me 

Lmao. They don't even have the balls to say they support that freak anymore lol.

29 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Grave criminal or unethical conduct. That’s the typical verbiage.

Certainly not because you believe one of their rulings to be unconstitutional  

 

Who has decided on this though?

14 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I’m still trying to figure out what we’re locking and loading about

I'm actually wondering why people who dislike firearm ownership, think that it's such a bad idea to require people who own firearms and wish to carry them, to have to go to the government and register for a license... thereby telling the government that they own a firearm (or more than one). 

Isn't one of the desires of those that dislike firearm ownership, to require gun registration and strict background checks with close governmental supervision? Maybe even required firearm safety classes for those that do wish to carry one?

This ruling was about concealed carry licenses. So the gun owner will register with the state, be required (at least in Virginia), to complete firearms safety classes and have a whole list of requirements that they have to meet in order to be eligible for said license (including be over 21... again, in Virginia. I don't know about other states). 

I've heard the argument made by 2nd Amendment advocates that people kill people by getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk, or on drugs. So why not have strict automobile control? 

The rebuttal from the opposing side is "You have to be a certain age, and take classes to drive, you have to pass a test and you have to register with the government to get a license, so there is 'automobile control', so it's not the same thing."

Well, I'd think that requiring a gun owner to have to apply for a license and meet those requirements, would be something applauded by the 'opposing' side and maybe even resisted by the other side. 

Since carrying is the topic, Virginia is actually an open carry state. If I want to go out with my 1911, cocked and locked, on my hip (not concealed), I can and I don't need a permit/license to do so. I'd think people would be more 'upset' about that, than being required to register and be licensed by the state, to carry one concealed. 

Congratulation NY.

3 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

I think that traditionally, we do, at least within the context of academics and lawyers who study and work with these issues. If anything, though, I think that this would more or less pertain to an originalist's perspective: Being concerned specifically with what the words in the Constitution meant at the time by using the founding generation's own understanding of it. The idea of the Constitution being a "living, breathing document" seems to often be at variance with this, because that view gives more credence to the adaptability of the document to the times. But I often go back to these kinds of sources because they seem like a good starting point to maybe help find some common ground. A lot of times when you read the opinions of originalists, they frequently appeal to 18th-Century tracts like the Federalist Papers.

But the issue at hand here is the use of public monies to fund religious activities. The organizations you mention are not religious institutions, so I don't see how they're analogous.

It’s important to distinguish between getting at the original generations understanding of the meaning of the text and a particular founders hope about how the text might affect policy.  The only thing that was ever voted on were the words in the constitution.  Nobody ever voted on the verbiage in any of Jefferson’s outside commentary, and Jefferson was in France during the convention of 1789 anyway, so even then that’s not a strong argument 

You can only fairly interpret the words that were voted on.  Everyone who cast that vote understood there are going to be sharks attempting  to twist the words, and the votes were presumably cast on the basis of the strength of the text as written in stand alone form

3 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I'm actually wondering why people who dislike firearm ownership, think that it's such a bad idea to require people who own firearms and wish to carry them, to have to go to the government and register for a license... thereby telling the government that they own a firearm (or more than one). 

Isn't one of the desires of those that dislike firearm ownership, to require gun registration and strict background checks with close governmental supervision? Maybe even required firearm safety classes for those that do wish to carry one?

This ruling was about concealed carry licenses. So the gun owner will register with the state, be required (at least in Virginia), to complete firearms safety classes and have a whole list of requirements that they have to meet in order to be eligible for said license (including be over 21... again, in Virginia. I don't know about other states). 

I've heard the argument made by 2nd Amendment advocates that people kill people by getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk, or on drugs. So why not have strict automobile control? 

The rebuttal from the opposing side is "You have to be a certain age, and take classes to drive, you have to pass a test and you have to register with the government to get a license, so there is 'automobile control', so it's not the same thing."

Well, I'd think that requiring a gun owner to have to apply for a license and meet those requirements, would be something applauded by the 'opposing' side and maybe even resisted by the other side. 

Since carrying is the topic, Virginia is actually an open carry state. If I want to go out with my 1911, cocked and locked, on my hip (not concealed), I can and I don't need a permit/license to do so. I'd think people would be more 'upset' about that, than being required to register and be licensed by the state, to carry one concealed. 

Exactly. It's like they want people to think  it's like getting a library card or something. 

Looks like this administration would like to take a new version of Title IX before the supremes. Sounds like fun.

9 hours ago, The_Omega said:

Answer for me 

Yes 

7 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

It’s important to distinguish between getting at the original generations understanding of the meaning of the text and a particular founders hope about how the text might affect policy.  The only thing that was ever voted on were the words in the constitution.  Nobody ever voted on the verbiage in any of Jefferson’s outside commentary, and Jefferson was in France during the convention of 1789 anyway, so even then that’s not a strong argument 

You can only fairly interpret the words that were voted on.  Everyone who cast that vote understood there are going to be sharks attempting  to twist the words, and the votes were presumably cast on the basis of the strength of the text as written in stand alone form

Uh, no buddy. You can't only interpret the words. You have to interpret the intent, as well. 

46 minutes ago, Bill said:

Uh, no buddy. You can't only interpret the words. You have to interpret the intent, as well. 

The words come first guy, and if that suffices then that’s the end of it.  Intent only comes if you’ve reached some absurd conclusion about the words alone and you’re at a loss as to the meaning.  Every effort should be reasonably made to avoid looking at intent.  This is especially true of regular laws and I’d even say a regular law you can’t just read without researching intent is void for being vague.   The words in the constitution, that’s harder to say, because you’re stuck in a position where you can’t really say the constitution is too vague because that almost sounds like a heresy

9 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

The words come first guy, and if that suffices then that’s the end of it.  Intent only comes if you’ve reached some absurd conclusion about the words alone and you’re at a loss as to the meaning.  Every effort should be reasonably made to avoid looking at intent

I think there's a disconnect between what you think the law is and what law actually is. 

Matter of fact, it's not even an "I think". It's more or less apparent to me as an absolute certainty. 

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think there's a disconnect between what you think the law is and what law actually is. 

Matter of fact, it's not even an "I think". It's more or less apparent to me as an absolute certainty. 

Very well, read me the law that says intent matters

7 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Very well, read me the law that says intent matters

It was in your high school civics textbook. 

23 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Every effort should be reasonably made to avoid looking at intent.

Truly an idiotic take. You're basically saying "don't bother to try to understand".  Words are ALWAYS delivered within a context.

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

It was in your high school civics textbook. 

So you’ve swore an oath to preserve and protect your high school text book

who voted on the text book by the way?

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Truly an idiotic take. You're basically saying "don't bother to try to understand".  Words are ALWAYS delivered within a context.

If the framers had wished to elaborate, they had every chance to do so at the convention.  It’s not as if they couldn’t have written the law more clearly or included a statement of intent.  
 

if it’s possible to get the meaning without using intent, it should be done so

 

Dropping this here as we have been discussing the divide in this thread over the last day or so.  Sam nails the utter division between Trump and the knuckleheads on the left that fuels this crap.

3 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

If the framers had wished to elaborate, they had every chance to do so at the convention.  It’s not as if they couldn’t have written the law more clearly or included a statement of intent.  
 

if it’s possible to get the meaning without using intent, it should be done so

Do you really believe that the framers could have written clear language to cover all possible scenarios, situations, etc. 230 years forward?

1 minute ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Dropping this here as we have been discussing the divide in this thread over the last day or so.  Sam nails the utter division between Trump and the knuckleheads on the left that fuels this crap.

Do you really believe that the framers could have written clear language to cover all possible scenarios, situations, etc. 230 years forward?

Not only could have, but did.  The first amendment is an absolute prohibition on speech.  The language of the state constitutions are more elaborate and fit what I have described 

Just now, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Not only could have, but did.  The first amendment is an absolute prohibition on speech.  The language of the state constitutions are more elaborate and fit what I have described 

Ok, so this is fundamentally where your logic fails.  If you believe they could have conceived and written specific language to cover all types of scenarios 230+ years forward then there really isn't much to discuss.  In fact, they did just the opposite and they knew exactly what they were doing, i.e. laying the basic ground work and tenets from which to be able to reach rational judgement of entirely new situations.

4 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

 

Do you really believe that the framers could have written clear language to cover all possible scenarios, situations, etc. 230 years forward?

I’ll actually agree with him here. They absolutely did. 

The key here is that there is an amendment process. The founders set the ground rules. But like the NFL changing the distance of extra points or the NBA adding the 3 point line, the founders allowed for changes to the rules to keep up with things they couldn’t foresee.

But amendments are hard. And the modern American doesn’t like hard.

3 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Ok, so this is fundamentally where your logic fails.  If you believe they could have conceived and written specific language to cover all types of scenarios 230+ years forward then there really isn't much to discuss.  In fact, they did just the opposite and they knew exactly what they were doing, i.e. laying the basic ground work and tenets from which to be able to reach rational judgement of entirely new situations.

You spoke above of context but the quotes that are often used to support what you’re saying are taken out of context.  
 

The constitution has a built in fail safe for you’re infinite scenario problem and that’s in article V