Patriot Mobile

Cruz Intros 9 word amendment

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Duh. Tell us something we don't know.

    Nowhere were sets referred to at all. Rather the exact number of nine.

    Might as well talk about the second law of thermodynamics. Would be just as pertinent as what you posted.
    I apologize, I had believed we were discussing the set of nine justices on SCOTUS. I forgot maths don't have real world applications...

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    Hurley's Gold
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    I apologize, I had believed we were discussing the set of nine justices on SCOTUS.

    It's OK, many people make the same mistake. Legal language is often hard. The proposed amendment does not address the set of Justices, it discusses the number of Justices in the set, which, according to the proposed amendment, shall be 9.

    Math is much easier for some reason. It is a mathematical tautology that the number of elements in set A, if different that the number of elements in set B, cannot be the same as the number of elements in set B.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    It's OK, many people make the same mistake. Legal language is often hard. The proposed amendment does not address the set of Justices, it discusses the number of Justices in the set, which, according to the proposed amendment, shall be 9.

    Math is much easier for some reason. It is a mathematical tautology that the number of elements in set A, if different that the number of elements in set B, cannot be the same as the number of elements in set B.
    I assert the language is ambiguous. The bill should explicitly state no more than nine justices.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    MikeyJ

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 2, 2016
    258
    46
    Tomball
    For context, 28 USC sec. 1 states:
    The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
    Webster defines "consist" as:
    to be composed or made up
    So Cruz's use of "composed" in his proposed amendment is consistent with the current statutory language. If the proposed amendment is ambiguous, the current statute is ambiguous as well.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    For context, 28 USC sec. 1 states:

    Webster defines "consist" as:

    So Cruz's use of "composed" in his proposed amendment is consistent with the current statutory language. If the proposed amendment is ambiguous, the current statute is ambiguous as well.
    Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.

    Concrete is composed of sand, no mater how much gravel I add, it is still true there is a sand component.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.

    Concrete is composed of sand, no mater how much gravel I add, it is still true there is a sand component.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    Give up and stop digging the hole deeper.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Again, the court composed or consisting "of 9" is not made false by having a greater number number of justices.

    Yes, in fact it is demonstrably false. A Court of 10 Justices violates the language in Cruz' proposed amendment.

    Not sure, but I think what you're missing is that legal definitions do not have to conform to common use definitions, and legal definitions take precedence over common use definitions.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Yes, in fact it is demonstrably false. A Court of 10 Justices violates the language in Cruz' proposed amendment.

    Not sure, but I think what you're missing is that legal definitions do not have to conform to common use definitions, and legal definitions take precedence over common use definitions.
    If you think that is the case, explain the trouble some law makers and courts have with "shall not be infringed". Banning/taxing bump stocks, suppressors, machine guns, +.50cal, grenades, armor piercing pistol ammo, short barreled rifles &c isn't infringement?

    As presented, the left would still argue the amendment did not exclude a number greater than nine as it is not explicitly LIMITED to nine, only that the court must be composed of nine, not of only nine.

    Look at the difference in these two statements:
    1) composed of nine
    2) composed of only nine.

    #1 can be satisfied by 9 or any number greater than 9.

    #2 can is satisfied only by nine and no other number.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited:

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    If you think that is the case, explain the trouble some law makers and courts have with "shall not be infringed". Banning/taxing bump stocks, suppressors, machine guns, +.50cal, grenades, armor piercing pistol ammo, short barreled rifles &c isn't infringement?

    1) I know that is the case

    2) re: "infringed" -- this strongly supports my theory that the trouble you are having is with legal definitions. You are trying to apply common use definitions to words which have specific legal definitions, and that is often likely to get you the wrong answer. When you read "infringed", replace it with the word "broken" and you'll have a much better chance at understanding how the Court looks at 2A cases, and you'll understand why the left has taken an incrementalist approach to choking out your RKBA.


    As presented, the left would still argue the amendment did not exclude a number greater than nine as it is not explicitly LIMITED to nine, only that the court must be composed of nine, not of only nine.

    Look at the difference in these two statements:
    1) composed of nine
    2) composed of only nine.

    #1 can be satisfied by 9 or any number greater than 9.

    #2 can is satisfied only by nine and no other number.

    No, these are false, again, legal language tripping you up. The good news is that your brain is working quite well. You just are not thinking like a lawyer, and that is probably a Good Thing :)
     

    HKSig

    Let's Go Brandon!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 15, 2013
    1,018
    96
    Spring
    And the LORD spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to nine, no more, no less. Nine shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be nine. Ten shalt thou not count, neither count thou eight, excepting that thou then proceed to nine. Eleven is right out. Once the number nine, being the ninth number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    1) I know that is the case

    2) re: "infringed" -- this strongly supports my theory that the trouble you are having is with legal definitions. You are trying to apply common use definitions to words which have specific legal definitions, and that is often likely to get you the wrong answer. When you read "infringed", replace it with the word "broken" and you'll have a much better chance at understanding how the Court looks at 2A cases, and you'll understand why the left has taken an incrementalist approach to choking out your RKBA.




    No, these are false, again, legal language tripping you up. The good news is that your brain is working quite well. You just are not thinking like a lawyer, and that is probably a Good Thing :)

    You keep repeating variations of that statement without anything to back it up. Show me some case law or your "special secret legal meaning" dictionary.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,425
    96
    You keep repeating variations of that statement without anything to back it up. Show me some case law or your "special secret legal meaning" dictionary.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
    1603639505532.png
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Unfortunately the chance of a Constitutional amendment passing and then being ratified by 3/4 (38 or more states) of the states is slim to none currently.

    Williamr,

    NO NEW AMENDMENT NEEDED. - The other two branches of the federal government simply must PASS & the POTUS sign into law that PROIBITION of any SINGLE US Judge declaring ANY act of Congress, executive order of the POTUS or administrative regulation UNCONSTITUTIONAL outside of that single US Judicial District.

    yours, satx
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    Williamr,

    NO NEW AMENDMENT NEEDED. - The other two branches of the federal government simply must PASS & the POTUS sign into law that PROIBITION of any SINGLE US Judge declaring ANY act of Congress, executive order of the POTUS or administrative regulation UNCONSTITUTIONAL outside of that single US Judicial District.

    yours, satx
    True, but the amendment would be required to limit the number of SCOTUS justices to only nine.

    Incidentally, FDRs packing scheme involved forcing an "assistant" who had full voting powers upon the justices over 70yo.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    True, but the amendment would be required to limit the number of SCOTUS justices to only nine.

    Incidentally, FDRs packing scheme involved forcing an "assistant" who had full voting powers upon the justices over 70yo.

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    cycleguy2300,

    According to most scholars, NO Amendment would be required to FREEZE the current number of SCOTUS Justices to NINE as that is considered to be an "administrative matter".

    yours, satx
     

    cycleguy2300

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 19, 2010
    6,767
    96
    Austin, Texas
    cycleguy2300,

    According to most scholars, NO Amendment would be required to FREEZE the current number of SCOTUS Justices to NINE as that is considered to be an "administrative matter".

    yours, satx
    But, at any point the left controls the two elected branches, they could control the third as well

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    But, at any point the left controls the two elected branches, they could control the third as well

    Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

    cycleguy2300; All,

    PARDON ME for pointing out that what you (imVho) correctly posted has ALWAYS been true since the CONSTITUTION was adopted.

    That is WHY we Patriots must ALWAYS assure a CLEAN/HONEST election AND stand ready to defend our LIBERTY from the "forces of evil", whether those forces are called SOCIALISTS, ANARCHISTS, FASCISTS and/or COMMUNISTS.

    yours, satx
     
    Top Bottom