Here's somebody else who doesn't like the Constitution

[friendly_iconoclast]

Reminds me of a few people here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7202015

NC: asinine, irrelevant law cited in attempt to keep atheist off of the Asheville City Council

ASHEVILLE — North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.

Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution....

In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Maryland's requirement for officials to declare belief in God violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment....

But wait, that law was popular in MD, how dare the Supremes make that ruling simply on Constitutional grounds...

[Walk away]

1. I hated the Constitution when it allowed slavery. Didn't you?

Lucky for us that our founding fathers understood that we would evolve as a people. The Constitution is a "living document" that can change as the country and it's people learn and grow. Otherwise, runaway slaves would still be forced to return to their masters.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. Part of that change is incorporation. 'No test of religion' got incorporated in 1961

Seems some nutters in NC don't grok that. I sincerely hope that McDonald v. Chicago does the same for the Second Amendment.

More than 3/4 of the states agree with me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x274215

Maine Becomes 38th State To Ask SCOTUS To Incorporate 2nd Amendment.

I agree wholeheartedly with TheWraith's comment:

TheWraith (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-12-09 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good. Wish we'd incorporate all the amendments and get it over with.
I've never seen the validity to this half-assed selective enforcement of the constitution

I would say that the fear of "those people" having firearms has prevented incorporation of the 2A up until now.

Even the wingers' St. Ronnie Reagan signed the Mulford Act in California as a response to open carry by the Black Panthers.

Of course some people aren't down with incorporation at all:

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11978&comments=1#readcomments

....Kristen Rand, legislative director at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out to America that such weapons all come from jurisdictions without strong laws like Chicago’s. “You can’t buy a handgun in Chicago or the District of Columbia legally, so traffickers go to states with weaker laws and then bring them to the cities that don’t allow their purchase.” For Ms. Rand and other gun control advocates, one of the worst aspects of a victory by those who mounted McDonald v. Chicago would be that it would remove what she called “the most effective measures to prevent handgun violence.” She observed that the Supreme Court in both Heller and now in McDonald is examining the issue solely as a question of constitutional law....

Aside from pointing out that Chacago's handgun ban isn't actually effective, aren't the Supremes supposed to do what
Ms. Rand objects to?

[eqfan592]

3. Actually, the constitution didn't allow slavery.

It was simply not addressed at all, as far as I can read. It was amended to directly address the issue later on.

So if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, try and amend the constitution. And good luck with that, cuz your'e going to need it.

EDIT: Also, you weren't alive then to actually "hate" the constitution at all, so that's a bit of bullshit right there as well. It's also ironic that you'd be speaking of a civil liberties issue that was addressed in the constitution while you are promoting an ideal to restrict the civil liberties of the people of our nation.

[Euromutt]

9. Correct; the framers punted on slavery

The topic did come up during the constitutional convention, with certain northern states wanting to abolish slavery, but there was a reasonable fear at the time that any attempt to drive the issue to a head would result in the nascent republic tearing itself apart. So basically the framers shelved the issue, leaving it for future generations to thrash out. And seventy years later, they did.

[TheWraith]

10. It wasn't quite ignored COMPLTELY...

In discussing the apportionment of representatives, the Constitution says that they'll count the whole number of "free persons," and 3/5ths of all "other persons, including those bound to service". Otherwise, they did indeed try to ignore it entirely, for the simple reason that the states couldn't agree on anything about it. New England increasingly saw it as barbaric and wanted it to die out, and the south wanted it protected.

But it was inarguably the fact that the constitution DIDN'T address it in any substantial way that lead to 50+ years of various "compromises" and political debates leading up to the civil war.

One thing is also true, the constitution did not in any way endorse slavery as post #1 implied, nor did it provide for any of the trappings of slavery we know of like fugitive recovery.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. Yes, the constitution is a "living document"

"that can change as the country and it's people learn and grow." It has a means written in so as to allow for it to be amended as needed. Until then, the 2A a part of it NOT to be ignored.

edited for spelling.

[SteveM]

6. Often, it is people who "interpret" the Constitution so it can "allow..."

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in order to both define a U.S. Citizen and to bar states from abridging the privileges and immunities of U.S. Citizens. The main arguments for its passage? The systematic prohibition by Southern states (and agencies of the states) of black citizens from owning firearms. If by "living" you mean the amendment process, I agree with you.

Gun control as ALWAYS been about race.

[slackmaster]

8. It was originally silent on slavery, and the problem was fixed through (mostly) due process

I'm fine with a system of laws under which everything that isn't specifically prohibited is allowed. That forces government to debate and mull over restrictions on peoples' choices.

The real problem before slavery was banned was that a lot of people didn't understand that it was wrong. Peel that layer back and you find that they were unclear on the definition of a human being.

It's easy to enslave something that you don't regard as a human being.

[iverglas]

5. something I wanted to draw to your attention

In the now-locked (and too late locked) moron thread about hoplophobia, you remarked that there were posts in it that bordered on xenophobic ... and then proceeded to say:

Can we solve immigation problems with concentration camps like Oz did?

Intentional irony?

You linked to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_detention_in_Australia

but neglected to acknowledge what appears at the top of it:

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

And you neglected to determine/acknowledge another fact: the policy of mandatory detention has been ended in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_detention

You also seem to have entirely neglected to familiarize yourself with the situation in your own country; another handy intro for you:

http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/node/2381

In the 1990s the United States made a monumental shift in immigration policy, using detention as a primary means of enforcement, regardless of whether the individual was a flight risk or serious risk to society. In 1996, the United States enacted legislation that dramatically expanded the use of detention. The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) expanded mandatory detention without bond to large categories of non-citizens.

The drastic expansion of mandatory detention combined with skyrocketing detention budget appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security and changes in DHS policies and priorities favoring detention. As a result, the number of individuals detained has grown dramatically since the 1990s. In 2001, the U.S. detained approximately 95,000 individuals. By 2007, the number of individuals detained annually in the U.S. had grown to over 300,000. The average daily population of detained immigrants has grown from approximately 5,000 in 1994, to 19,000 in 2001, and to 32,000 by the end of 2008. In 2004, Congress authorized the creation of 40,000 new detention beds by 2010, which will bring detention capacity close to 62,000. ICE’s stated goal is to deport all removable aliens by 2012.

Huh, eh? Mandatory detention of migrants in the U.S.

Wanna know how it works in Canada?

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2001-c-27/latest/sc-2001-c-27.html

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

... 55. (1) An officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of a permanent resident or a foreign national who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe is inadmissible and is a danger to the public or is unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility hearing or removal from Canada.

... 58. (1) The Immigration Division shall order the release of a permanent resident or a foreign national unless it is satisfied, taking into account prescribed factors, that

(a) they are a danger to the public;

(b) they are unlikely to appear for examination, an admissibility hearing, removal from Canada, or at a proceeding that could lead to the making of a removal order by the Minister under subsection 44(2);

(c) the Minister is taking necessary steps to inquire into a reasonable suspicion that they are inadmissible on grounds of security or for violating human or international rights; or

(d) the Minister is of the opinion that the identity of the foreign national has not been, but may be, established and they have not reasonably cooperated with the Minister by providing relevant information for the purpose of establishing their identity or the Minister is making reasonable efforts to establish their identity.

So all in all, we have ...
- no mandatory detention in Australia
- no mandatory detention in Canada, and in fact due process guarantees to prevent detention except where justification is shown
- mandatory, and widespread detention in the United States

Some more info on that last point:

http://www.businessofdetention.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._Don_Hutto_Residential_Center

Ah, the military industrial prison complex, humming away.


Things that I happen to know about, and you apparently haven't bothered to learn, or acknowledge; whatever. Huh, eh?

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. Serves me right for not using the sarcasm tag

That was more in response to the premise that Australia is the peachy-keen antipodeal paradise that another
poster was banging on about.

I don't actually believe Australia "solved" their immigation problems with their various concentration camps any
more than I believe the US would actually put all undocumented immigrants in camps, given the howls of outrage that
would emanate from a) Big Business cut off from cheap, exploitable labor and b)Human rights organizations.

The States gets the best of both worlds with de jure mandatory detention and de facto "we'll
look the other way if some well-heeled industry needs cheap labor":

Both Democratic AND Republican politicians get to promise a solution to immigration problems Real Soon Now, while not
actually doing anything.