I met and talked / listened to the APD Police Chief

[London]

Why the hesitation bro? I should be your first choice! LOL

Tell ya what- when I rule the Universe you can have the job. But first you must demonstrate your loyalty to the new Uber-Fuhrer by executing the old SC judges yourself... with a baby rattle. Because that would be as horrible as it is funny.

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 

[M. Sage]

Are you saying the Supreme Court does NOT interpret the constitution and make binding decisions on what is and is not constitutional?

And I am out there?

So when they ruled the law against homosexual conduct in Texas unconstitutional, they were not allowed to do that? The entire system of challenging laws up to the supreme court is just wrong and not allowed? Is that what you are telling me?

Their decisions are always constitutionally defensible, let alone correct?

This is news to me.

 

[Hoji]

Alan, trust your defective, unslick speaking, redneck,hippie, metalhead, hardcore leaning family on this one.
Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Tell ya what- when I rule the Universe you can have the job. But first you must demonstrate your loyalty to the new Uber-Fuhrer by executing the old SC judges yourself... with a baby rattle. Because that would be as horrible as it is funny.

MWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

For some reason I'm envisioning Jonathan Winters... Lol

 

[CmdrHaggis]

If you can find the word "INTERPRET" or even a period term from the late 1700's that would mean interpret in Article 3 of the constitution then I will agree with you. The word "Interpret" would mean that the judicial is given the power to decide what the text of the constitution, which is written in fairly plain English, says or doesn't say. What part of "shall not be infringed" can be inferred to say that "'reasonable' infringement would be ok"???

"Interpret" isn't in there, but Marbury v. Madison did set the landmark precedent for SCoTUS "judicial review". I think "review" is the period term. Although this case was, in part, about Congress's "ability" to change the Court's original jurisdiction at will, I think it opened the door for broader application. Much like Congress does with "Necessary and Proper" and the Commerce Clause.

John Marshall wrote,

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each. ... Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].


This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions

Jefferson disagreed with Marshal, however:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed ... They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.

IANAL, but my poly sci prof (a lawyer himself) clearly said that SCoTUS can say what is, and what is not, Constitutional. I take Jefferson's words to heart since we've certainly seen SCoTUS do their own thing based on agenda, IMO.

I do agree with you, by the way, that "shall not be infringed" is plain English and it's high time folks realize that. It's an uphill battle, though. SCoTUS set that bar in Heller when Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. ... the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

Jefferson was right to be wary of an all-powerful Court.

(I've hijacked the thread, so that's all I'll say!)

 

[biglucky]

"Interpret" isn't in there, but Marbury v. Madison did set the landmark precedent for SCoTUS "judicial review". I think "review" is the period term. Although this case was, in part, about Congress's "ability" to change the Court's original jurisdiction at will, I think it opened the door for broader application. Much like Congress does with "Necessary and Proper" and the Commerce Clause.

John Marshall wrote,


Jefferson disagreed with Marshal, however:


IANAL, but my poly sci prof (a lawyer himself) clearly said that SCoTUS can say what is, and what is not, Constitutional. I take Jefferson's words to heart since we've certainly seen SCoTUS do their own thing based on agenda, IMO.

I do agree with you, by the way, that "shall not be infringed" is plain English and it's high time folks realize that. It's an uphill battle, though. SCoTUS set that bar in Heller when Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. ... the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

Jefferson was right to be wary of an all-powerful Court.

(I've hijacked the thread, so that's all I'll say!)

The SCoTUS was created to ensure that laws that were enacted by Congress (Legislative Branch) and signed by the President (Executive Branch) did not run afoul of the absolute rights provided by the constitution. Our Republic has been in danger since the beginning because the Supreme Court has not done its job. The rights in the bill of rights ARE absolute, regardless of what even a right leaning SCoTUS justice has to say about them. I guess when we are refreshing the country after the at this point inevitable revolution that is something that needs to be looked at.

The state of this country sickens me...

 

[TX69]

Why the hesitation bro? I should be your first choice! LOL

 

[Texas1911]

God damn, did you people even read what I posted? I even said that I don't agree with him, but I see where he came up with his ideas on gun control.

There's maybe 2 people that have any idea what I really thought of Art Acevedo (HINT, it's not great). Having met him in person, I am better aware of who he is and how he acts. At no point did I say it was what I believe, or what I think. I do think there are 3rd party outlets that exaggerate what he says ... as they would ANYONE. People like Alex Jones LOVE to get everyone riled up and laugh all the way to the bank, just the same as the evil news media.

 

[breakingcontact]

Re: NSFW: Super Post Whore Thread v2.0

He's from California and should go back and take half of Austin with him.

 

[Texasjack]

God damn, did you people even read what I posted? I even said that I don't agree with him, but I see where he came up with his ideas on gun control.

There's maybe 2 people that have any idea what I really thought of Art Acevedo (HINT, it's not great). Having met him in person, I am better aware of who he is and how he acts. At no point did I say it was what I believe, or what I think. I do think there are 3rd party outlets that exaggerate what he says ... as they would ANYONE. People like Alex Jones LOVE to get everyone riled up and laugh all the way to the bank, just the same as the evil news media.

Actually, YOU should go back and read what you said because it most assuredly sounds like you totally drank the kool-aid with A.A. It may not be what you MEANT, but I've gotta say I was shocked to read it.

 

[Texasjack]

He's from California and should go back and take half of Austin with him.

I share your opinion except for this: Only half?!?

 

[TexasRedneck]

God damn, did you people even read what I posted? I even said that I don't agree with him, but I see where he came up with his ideas on gun control.

Yep, I did....several times, in fact - because I couldn't believe what you wrote. Perhaps your words didn't come across as intended, but when you present his ideas of total background checks with ANY degree of reasonableness, your ideas on the subject and mine divert quickly. As to backing his officers....not from what I've heard from the guys on the force that were catchin' flack for non-pc type issues.

 

[Texas1911]

I share your opinion except for this: Only half?!?

Should be closer to 70% by now.

 

[Texas1911]

Yep, I did....several times, in fact - because I couldn't believe what you wrote. Perhaps your words didn't come across as intended, but when you present his ideas of total background checks with ANY degree of reasonableness, your ideas on the subject and mine divert quickly. As to backing his officers....not from what I've heard from the guys on the force that were catchin' flack for non-pc type issues.

I said that I can understand why he believes that. He's not really afraid of the guns, but he thinks that if he does X then he will get Y outcome. That mindset is every bit as much of a problem to personal liberty as the others, but I can at least see a legitimate argument unlike what the majority of the leftist out there offer up.

 

[NeckBeard]

even the head cashier at a walmart would know that every one of these shootings was perpetrated by a person who got the guns legally.

it's registration and control. period.

man, either this country is full blown stupid or easily manipulated.

i'm thinking both. it's certainly not stocked with thinking people. police tend to be robots anyway.

 

[breakingcontact]

I heard a report about the chief and APD on NPR this morning. Acevedo is a politician and not one on our side. See how the police handle things as this city changes.

 

[oldguy]

Acevedo is a politician and not one on our side.

Pure and simple, opportunist, Californian, anti-gun.

 

[Shuutr]

I said that I can understand why he believes that. He's not really afraid of the guns, but he thinks that if he does X then he will get Y outcome. That mindset is every bit as much of a problem to personal liberty as the others, but I can at least see a legitimate argument unlike what the majority of the leftist out there offer up.

Yeah. I see where you're coming from.

 

[TexasRedneck]

I said that I can understand why he believes that. He's not really afraid of the guns, but he thinks that if he does X then he will get Y outcome. That mindset is every bit as much of a problem to personal liberty as the others, but I can at least see a legitimate argument unlike what the majority of the leftist out there offer up.

Do you really, Alan? Think about it....this is someone with significant background in criminal actions/study that KNOWS where they get their firearms - and that their tactics will change w/the laws, as is common with the criminal element. IF he truly believes that, then he also knows that trying to force background checks on all transactions will simply result in higher street prices for guns, and more break-ins to get 'em.

Sorry - but I don't think he's that stupid. He's simply singing the party line, IMO.

 

[Ericstac]

I really doubt the underground gun world is going to give a rats ass to this background check crap. If anything they will probably figure out a way to find this information through some form of govt corruption and then use it to determine which houses are armed so they can get more guns to sell to each other..