I love Bite Me Biden, I’m going to miss him after January. Apparently, according to the Washington Examiner, yesterday Bite Me told an eager crowd of reporters that Al Franken is a “leading legal scholar”;
“He has been one of the leading legal scholars,” Biden said of Franken today, according to the pool report. He also said that Franken “is deadly serious” as a senator. He made the comments while recalling concerns that then-candidate Franken could not be taken seriously as a Senate candidate given his SNL work.
Of course, compared to Joe Bite Me, Coco the Chimp is a leading legal scholar.
Ah, yes – Joe “Mr. Plagiarism” Biden lecturing us on scholarship. How apropos.
Dang! If he’s a legal scholar, then I’m a highly respected neurosurgeon, perhaps best known for the teaching hospitals I built over the past 30 years across the galaxy. When I wasn’t building launch systems for NASA. And exploring the ocean depths using a solar powered dive capsule of my own design.
Cmon people…these are the same people who employ skanks like Ann Rosen.
Correction to last…Hilary Rosen. Surprising how bitter hateful liberal chicks seem to be named Hilary…or maybe not so much of a surprise.
No surprise at all, Sparky.
Yeah, Franken is a legal scholar, like Obama is a Constitutional scholar.
Seriously, is Biden mentally ill, or suffering from Alzheimer’s?
I think it is the stuff that the President is slipping him. To keep him compliant with the President’s plans. Either that, or he is the most specialist crayon in the box.
Well Hell! I’m not a garbageman, I’m a nuclear scientist!? If I could lower myself to become a democRAT!?
1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.
2. The only source i can see on this is from that blog. Half of it is spent discussing something Franken did during the Kagan hearings. Hardly an impartial source.
They need to release an “open mic biden” dvd. Comedy gold, or absolutely horrifying, or both. Depending on how you look at it.
Boy insipid, you were grounded for a long time. You must have broken a serious rule. Mommy finally give your computer back? Are you allowed to go outside yet?
Speaking of “constitutional scholars” . . . how’s that 2nd Amendment and definition of “militia” research going for ya, oh Insipid the Clueless?
@9- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002553008
Would this link be better for you, you fucking partisan retard?
I’m not going to bother quoting anyone, you know who you are and what you said.
The democratic underground link is from a diarist. It’s as if the folks here let ME write a diary. The source in DU is Jonathan Turley who doesn’t give his source, but i assume it’s the same Washington Examiner story.
Even if we are to generously assume that Joe Biden said that, so what? Is it the standing position of TAH that the only way someone can be a legal scholar is to have a law degree? James Madison studied law as an interest in public policy but never obtained a law degree. I think it’s fair to call the father of the Constitution a legal scholar. Plus Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law review at Harvard graduated 2nd in his class taught Constitutional law and you don’t recognize HIM as a scholar either. So in your view NO liberal can be a Constitutional Scholar because you think liberalism is antithetical to Constitutionalism.
Al Franken is an intelligent man. He made it into Harvard based on excellent scholarship in High Schoo and not because he was a “legacy”. He graduated Cum Laude, he was the lead writer of a major television show for a lot of years and won something like 8 emmys in the process, he was nominated for an academy award for his screenplay of “When a Man Loves a Woman” and he’s written quite a number of best selling books. The man is completely capable of studying and comprehending law on his own.
Nobunny- I wish you all would make up your mind. If i post a lot on this site people declare that I’m some kind of interloper and that i should “run along”. When i don’t post I’m usually either cowardly or, in your case, not allowed. Of course it can’t be that i have a life and interest outside of TAH.
Hondo- How’s that definition of Militia going for you? Or are you still maintaining that the CLEARLY military militia referred to in the body of the Constitution is completely different then the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment.
As far as the great debate goes. I do apologize for not showing up when i said i would and “defending” my views. I know that this is a subject you’re very passionate about. But you also should recognize that I’m NOT that passionate about it. I think if you want to own a gun, then you should be able to own a gun. I also think you’re stupid for wanting a gun, but you’re stupid for wanting heroin and i don’t think that should be illegal either.
You also should recognize that 1. for me to post here i either have to trade insults back and forth or i just have to be a metaphorical punching bag. I’m capable of doing both but neither is a lot of fun. 2. I do have school, a full time job and a Social life. The great debate will probably happen sooner or later, but it will probably be between semesters. The Second Amendment isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.
So, while i DO believe that the Congress has the right to make guns illegal or legislate it in any other way they like, i would not necessarily vote for it if i were a member of Congress. For whatever it’s worth, i also believe that Congress probably has the authority to mandate that we all have weapons. I wouldn’t vote for that law either.
What bothers me is the creeping 2nd amendment. If you all would just state “We believe every American has the right to keep and bear arms” and interpreted it as the right to have a handgun and to have hunting rifles, that would be OK. I’d STILL think you were wrong, but hey, you have a right to be wrong.
What bothers me is folks like Tim McViegh who insanely believed that the 2nd amendment gave him the right to wage war against his government.
What bothers me is ALEC and folks like the author of this blog who think that laws like “Stand Your Ground” have anything to do with the Constitution. Fine have your gun, but if you fire it and an unarmed man dies you should be forced to defend your actions.
What bothers me is when folks argue- and you know they’re out there- that the second amendment allows for a private citizen to have ALL weapons that the U.S. government can have. Thus the Koch brothers or Bill Gates can have their own private nuclear arsenal.
If your second amendment allows you to keep and fellate your own guns in the privacy of your own home fine. But when your second amendment prevents me from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed I have a problem with that. Especially if your interpretation allows the killer to walk away without having to explain himself in a court of law. When your second amendment prevents me from dropping off a a child at a government day-care center without some idiot blowing it up I have a problem with that.
When your second amendment infringes on a Pediatricians first amendment rights to warn a parent of the dangers of having a gun in the home, i have a problem with that.
But I guess you’re probably still railing from the SC totally eviscerating your “interpretation” of the 4th Amendment. Or are you going to argue that Zimmerman can’t be given a breathelizer after shooting a teenager but everyone else can be strip searched for violating a leash law? Or- in the SC case- committing no crime at all? Good luck with that.
Insipid: do you even have a clue as to how the term “militia” is defined by Federal law today? Or how it was defined by Federal law at roughly the same time (1792) that the Bill of Rights was adopted?
Both of those definitions are critical to the bogus argument you’re trying to make here. You’re arguing – incorrectly – that the 2nd Amendment restricts gun possession to those who are members of the militia, which you’re defining as being the military reserves. But is even that fallacious argument you’re trying to make supportable based on 1790s and current Federal law? Under your argument, the former (1790s law) goes directly to the intent of the 2nd Amendment when written, and the latter (current Federal law) has a direct bearing on how it is to be legally interpreted today. Have you even checked to see that your argument has any legal basis whatsoever?
When you can answer both of those questions, then you’re qualified to discuss the subject of the 2nd Amendment and what “militia” means in that context. You’ll still be making a false argument if you choose to proceed – but you won’t be proceeding from a position of ignorance.
And until then, you’re not qualified to discuss the subject – and should keep quiet until you are. You might save yourself some embarrassment.
It would be nice if you understood my argument before you restated it. I made it VERY clear that i am not arguing that gun possession is restricted to members of the militia. If you want to have a gun, have fun. What i am arguing is that Congress CAN regulate guns if they want to. Not necessarily that they should. I think they can regulate drugs too. But i don’t necessarily believe they should.
Also, had the SC not inserted intself into the 2000 election and it was Al Gore rather than George Bush picking Sandra Day O’Conner’s replacement I would be arguing a 5-4 decision in MY favor. And you’d be the one arguing that the SC is full of shit. Which is, by the way, a perfectly valid argument to make. Four members of the SC saw it my way. So you can argue that they’re wrong, but you can’t logically argue that there is no legal basis. Four justices did find a legal basis. And- i might add- up until the SC recent Dictates my interpretation of the Constitution- that the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias- was the law of the land. And yes i can site you many Federal Court cases that said precisely that.
The 1790s law clearly supports my view of it applying to militias in that it only applied to people of military age and that there was a conscientious objection exclusion.
As far as your closing shot as to what makes me “qualified” to debate you 1. You’re trying to have it both ways in saying that i was wrong to not defend myself and that I really can’t defend myself. That I have no right to give an opinion but that i’m also afraid or admitting to being incorrect if i don’t. 2. Why is it that I’m the only one obligated to answer nagging questions when it comes to Constitutional definitions of the militia?
How bout this when you’re able to answer why the Militia in the body of the constitution which calls for The president being able to call us up at a moments notice, which calls for Congress to Arm the militia and train its members is somehow magically different then the millitia in the 2nd. My view is consistent- they’re both military bodies. Your view is a mess.
By this logic, if one has read a couple of medical books one could be called a surgeon.
Being smart doesn’t make a body anything other than smart. It’s another of those concepts that the left always gets wrong. Yes, a smart person has the capacity to learn law, medicine, or whatever but having the capacity to learn is NOT the same as having knowledge of the law, medicine, or whatever.
I’ve read quite a few mystery novels, but that makes me neither a murderer nor a prosecuter. Writing some stuff for Hollywood simply does not equate to being a scholar of any variety.
This really ain’t complicated.
Actually a pretty good argument OWB. However i would argue that Al Franken did study political science at Harvard and did graduate Cum Laude and that he does sit on the Judiciary Committee and that he has been a fairly successful Senator in terms of getting legislation through. Especially for a Freshman Senator.
However, you must admit that the basic problem folks here have is with WHO he’s calling a Legal scholar. If Joe Biden had called President Barack Obama a “leading legal scholar” UpNorth would certainly take issue with that. The problem here is the notion that anyone would call a liberal a legal scholar.
Either way, you all are being awfully snobbish. I’m willing to concede that both Sonny Bono and Ronald Reagan were intelligent men despite my not agreeing with their politics. You might disagree with Al Franken, but the man is intelligent.
@16 – “How bout this when you’re able to answer why the Militia in the body of the constitution which calls for The president being able to call us up at a moments notice, which calls for Congress to Arm the militia and train its members is somehow magically different then the millitia in the 2nd. My view is consistent- they’re both military bodies. Your view is a mess.”
Seriously? That’s easy. Read the Framers own opinions on that topic in Federalist #28, 29, and 46.
The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. You may argue that the SC is full crap, but 5 members got it right based on the words and intent of the framers and their contemporaries, 4 got wrong based on later interpretation rooted in partisan concerns. It’s simple as hell. 🙂
For more information Insipid, see also-
William Rawle’s “A View of the Constitution of the United States of America” (1829),
St. George Tucker’s edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803),
Justice Story’s 1833 “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”. Regarding the Second Amendment
Tench Coxe’s “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
I could fill pages here with information from the FOUNDERS in support of the individual right to keep and bear arms. It’s not even a challenge.
And I have a question for you Insipid, you wrote “But when your second amendment prevents me from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed I have a problem with that.”
Can you give me an example of how the Second Amendment has ever prevented you from walking to the convenience store and back without being stalked and shot and killed? Can you give me an example of how it has done that to anyone? Come on, whatcha got?
Insipid . . . riiiight. You can cease work on the attempts to prove yourself a condescending, clueless ass. We get that about you alread.
And regarding your SCOTUS hypothetical above: in some alternate universe I’d be the one who founded MicroSoft instead of Bill Gates, and I’d be a multi-billionaire. But like your fantasy above, that’s not reality – it’s a fantasy.
Back to the topic at hand: here you’ve really exposed yourself as being clueless.
First: the Constitution says nothing about the President having the authority to “call up the militia at a moment’s notice”. In fact, the only mention of the President in connection with the militia in the Constitution is in Article II, Section 2. Here, the President is designated as commander in chief of “of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”. That’s it.
Second: How – or how quickly – the militia is called into Federal service is nowhere referenced in the Constitution. Further, authority to prescribe how the militia is to be called up is granted specifically to the Congress – not the President – in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Thus Congress – not the President – is the part of the Federal government who dictates how quickly the militia may be called to Federal service, and under what conditions.
Third: Congress only has the authority to act as a regulator in those areas where the Constitution grants it that authority – that is, in those areas specifically enumerated in Section 8 of Article I of the US Constitution, or as specifically granted additional authorities by Constitutional Amendments. By the 10th Amendment, all other authorities are specifically withheld from Congress, being reserved to either individuals and/or the individual states.
Fourth: Even those authorities granted to Congress have limits imposed by other portions of the Constitution – most notably, by the Bill of Rights and other later Constitutional Amendments. And the 2nd Amendment specifically places limits on how much Congress can regulate individual ownership of firearms. In particular, outright prohibition is a NO GO on Constitutional grounds. And I’m cautiously optimistic that the SCOTUS will clarify and enforce the second major individual right granted to individuals by the 2nd Amendment – e.g., the right to carry (that pesky little “and bear” clause you and others sharing your point of view keep ignoring) – in the relatively near future. Reasonable legal regulation of firearms may be permissible – I haven’t heard anyone here argue for the unrestricted private possession of either machine guns or howitzers – but any such regulation still must be reasonable. And reasonable regulation may not be so onerous that is is equivalent to prohibition.
Oh, and you might want to go back and re-read your previous comments, both above and elsewhere. If memory serves, elsewhere you actually have argued that the 2nd Amendment does not convey an individual right of firearms ownership. The only way that can be true is to interpret the 2nd Amendment as restricting firearms possession to government-owned arms held temporarily by members of the militia. That’s only workable if you equate the terms militia and organized military reserves. And you’ve got a problem in that case, given both late 18th century and current legal definitions of the term militia.
In short: go do your homework, kid. And you probably shouldn’t come back until you do.
PS: Different subject: source for your claim regarding Obama’s Harvard Law School standing, please? Provide a credible citation, or I believe I’ll have to raise the BS flag regarding that claim.
Oh, and Insipid: “leading scholars” in any field generally have numerous well-known, respected, published works relating to their field of expertise. These works are generally used by others and considered standards in that field of expertise.
I’d appreciate it if you could point me at, say, 2 or 3 well-known, respected, published academic works by Barak H. Obama regarding the law that are cited by others and considered standard works in the field. My memory isn’t that good today, and I have to admit I that I can’t seem to think of any off the top of my head. Maybe you can help.
And no – serving as student editor of a college publication, or publishing articles in same, generally doesn’t count. Not even if it was a Harvard Law School publication.
Insipid: Alan Dershowitz is an example of a respected legal scholar who is also liberal. Al Franken is merely liberal; he’s no legal scholar.
Regardless of Biden’s mental illness, he remains Obama’s ultimate insurance policy. Or America’s greatest vulnerability.
Generally speaking, similarly to what Hondo said above, a leading scholar in any field would be someone who members of that field would recognize as one. Political leaning really is irrelevant. It’s a technical expertise thing.
Kinda doesn’t matter to whom those of us outside the field might use for referance. I happen to know a couple of folks with very liberal political leanings who are recognized locally within the field of law as being very expert. Perhaps because of what they have done, written, and taught in the field of law?
But, fairly nice attempt at a straw man there, insipid. Of course, if you found yourself agreeing on our criteria for what makes a leading scholar in a field, it would throw out most of that “scientific evidence” submitted in the past 20 years or so from “peers” who had no expertise or reason to lecture any of the rest of us on global warming et al.
I kinda like using something beyond what would qualify one as an expert witness in a court of law plus recognition by one’s peers to define one as a “leading scholar.”
Whatever criteria is used, Franken ain’t one. He may indeed be smart, even well read, but he’s not a leading legal scholar by any sensible criteria a sane person, or a bar association, would use.
There’s nothing in any of the Federalist papers that you have named that even remotely suggests that the militia is anything other than a military body.
Federalist #46: To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, OFFICERED by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by GOVERNMENTS possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops…..Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia OFFICERS are APPOINTED, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Federalist #28: THE power of REGULATING the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were CALLED INTO SERVICE for the public defense.
Federalist #28: Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to DO THEIR DUTY.
There is nothing i see in any of these documents that refer to the militia as anything other than what it was and is, a state-run military organization.
The President’s power to call foth the militia comes from article 2, section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States: And Courts have maintained since Lincoln that the President can activate the militia pretty much at will. Eisenhower did it, as did George H.W. Bush as did George W. Bush.
The Congress also has powers over the militia as shown in article 1:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Again, ALL these documents, including the Federalist papers and the body of the constitution itself CLEARLY refers to the militia as being a military body. Now you guys are trying to magically say it isn’t.
I will stipulate that i do not believe Franken to be a legal scholar. My argument wasn’t so much that i think Franken IS a legal scholar only that someone can refer to someone as that without the person necessarily having a law degree. IF that happened I’d like to know the context. Was he referring to Communications and internet rights- a field that Franken in more involved in then pretty much any other Senator- then maybe you could call him a “scholar” in that limited sense. Though i do admit that using that term is hyperbolic. I still do not trust the source of this story.
I also don’t understand the outrage. You all seem to be considerably more upset about this then Democrats are at Alen West referring to 80 members of Congress as communists.
Insipid @14:
I do not speak for TAH. I only speak for myself, so I can’t tell you that you aren’t allowed to comment. I find you annoying because you aren’t here to present an opinion. As Jonn says, this is an opinion website. I would say this is a DEFENSIBLE opinion website.
You find you are the punching bag because you are a troll.
Hondo- My point was that you’re arguing that my view has no validity whatsoever. That there is no precedent or arguments on my side. The fact that it was a 5 to 4 decision proves that at least 4 justices believe you’re wrong.
Secondly you’re ignoring both reality and Supreme Court decions (most notably actually the Roberts court) on the power of the executive. Almost every President Since Truman has called forth the Reserves as they see fit and the Supreme Court has never argued their right to do so. Certainly THIS court isnt’ about to say he doesn’t have the right. You can’t on the one hand argue that the SC is all knowing and all wise (at least the 5 that agree with you) but also argue that they got it wrong in allowing the President to call forth the militia as he or she sees fit.
My guess is that anyone who disagrees with you would be a troll, nobunny. And plus i don’t value the opinions of assholes like you.
Look up the definition of troll, troll.
“troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
See also insipid.
Ooooo, oh my, insipid called me an asshole. Hahahahahaha… How ever will I recover.
a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums:
“1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.”
That’s right insipid, just ignore the obvious and keep prattling along. 🙂
I take comfort in the knowledge that you have been given the necessary information but are obviously to dense to draw the correct conclusions. Now before you can make some lame complaint like ‘Oh, since I don’t agree with you I’m stupid?’ allow me to explain.
No, you’re not stupid because you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid because you can’t draw logical conclusions, even when they’re presented to you in dotted lines on white paper and handed a crayon.
“If Joe Biden had called President Barack Obama a “leading legal scholar” UpNorth would certainly take issue with that”. Thank you from saving me a long post, Insipid.
Apparently, Insipid, you’re still hung up on Zimmerman not being given a breath test. You really ought to familiarize yourself with Florida law on the matter, before you, yet again, beclown yourself. “By Florida statute, law enforcement was prohibited from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time”. This is from the Sanborn, Fl, website. Now, if you’re saying that the Sanborn PD should have violated the law, I would find that shocking,shocking, I tell you.
Yet again, that pesky phrase, Probable Cause, comes up.
I’ll link to the site, and I’d encourage you to read, also follow the links to FL 776.012, 776.013, 776.031 and 776.032. It really explains everything. http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf
Then there is this, from Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a dyed in the wool, gun-toting conservative, is he? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/
Wow! I failed to pick up on anyone’s outrage at this stupid remark about Franken being a legal scholar!! To all who were outraged, I apologize for my failure to correctly assess your true feelings on this topic.
Ya know, ’cause we are all about our feelings here.
(Pssssst. For the record, OWB’s response was a big belly laugh. And it still causes a giggle or two around the edges, especially now that insipid has expressed a complete and utter lack of understanding what I, and perhaps a couple of other folks here, find humorous.)
In #33, it should be Sanford, Fl.
Well, it seems like I’m hearing two different arguments from the folks at TAH 1. The law is completely ok and stand your ground laws had nothing to do with Zimmerman not being charged and 2. There’s no way Zimmerman can be charged because stand your ground laws make it perfectly ok to shoot teenagers for walking down the street at 7:30 in the evening being suspisciously black and all.
I do agree with Dershowitz that the police made a mess of this case. I disagree that there was no probable cause. I believe that if a black guy had killed a white teenager walking home from the store there’d be plenty of probable cause.
Nobunny-a person who posts outrageous message to bait people to answer. Troll delights in sowing discord on the forums:
“1. Biden isn’t going anywhere in November. Romney is going to lose by as bad a margin as McCain did.”
That’s not troll-like. In fact i was responding to this thread. If anything is troll-like it’s the folks trying to bait me with extremperaneous 2nd amendment, Zimmerman arguments.
And you’ll recover from being called an asshole in the same amound of time i’ll recover from being called a troll. However you’ll never recover from actually being an asshole. That’s a permanent affliction for you.
Speaking for myself, I wasn’t trying to bait you, I was pointing out that one of your arguments is easy to refute. When you adopted a logically untenable position on the evidence I called you as I see you. Simple.
Insipid, your MO is to be a troll. Every time you have posted on this forum you have sought to inject emotion. You know what your motivation is.
It is certainly not to logically present an opinion.
Historically, you show up mid-thread and throw in some grenade-like comment.
You were not responding to the thread. You made, and have repeatedly made, a statement only to illicit an emotional response, because that is what you do. You derail discussion by throwing in inflammatory remarks, such as the stupid aside about not being able to walk into a convenience store without being shot, blah, blah, blah.
A get it right child, in your world I would be a right wing bitch.
“I believe that if a black guy had killed a white teenager walking home from the store there’d be plenty of probable cause.”
“suspiciously black”
YOU are the one injecting race-bating language into a discussion about Biden. Hondo only asked you about the definition of militia, and you launched into one of your typical rants.
Inflammatory. Troll. Punching bag because you are a an idiot.
Let’s see Nobunny, in this thread they refer to Biden as “bite me biden”. Is that straight down the line reporting not entitled to elicit an emotional response? He states categorically as a fact that Biden will be gone in January, that’s not intended to illicit an emotional respnse? Then of course he went on to state that he’s no smarter then coco the chimp. That’s not exactly a page out of Walter Kronkite.
You guys like to play this game where you call the liberals names and then jump on the cross as soon as they say something back.
My first post, if you’ll bother looking was a complete response to the initial thread. What took us off topic was people wanting to debate me on arguments left behind on other threads.
I’m not “injecting” race into anything. I’m pointing out that it’s already there. If you think Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.
” If you think Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.”
Insipid, was it your intention to make such a broad statement? Or did you intend to say ” If you think all Cops are color blind then you need to remove the blinders.” ?
Really interested in your answer to that one. 🙂
Hey, it is Jonn’s blog. HIS opinion blog.
And you’re only confirming my analysis of your methods by calling police racist in a thread about the stupidity of Biden/Franken.
You have to come onto a blog with views counter to your own to vent your impotent pent-up rage. You insult people at every opportunity then whine when you are treated the same way. Who else but a weakling would refer to themselves as a punching bag on a blog where they know they will receive strong debate?
Come to think of it…
You are not a punching bag: you’re a target.
Translation: if a conservative does it, it’s ok. Regardless of whos blog this is, the opening comment was inflamatory.
I do not insult people at every oportunity. I used to have the policy of ignoring insults, now i have the policy of replying to insults to people that insult me. You’re very first post directed at me was an insult so i insulted. Juvenile? Yes. But so was your first post.
Obviously you have very poor reading comprehension but i’ll review the exact history of how the thread got off topic.
I responded DIRECTLY to the thread on thead 9 (harldy the middle of the thread) on thread 11 you insulted me, i presume because you just knew I’d send the thread off topic. Honda, not i, brought up the 2nd amendment on thread 12 then Upnorth Brought Trayvon/zimmerman into this on thread 33.
Either way, you have a hell of a lot of gall pearl clutching about how “Trollish” i am when your very first thread was pure troll by your own definition.
Here’s what you say a troll is:
troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
Here’s your first post: Boy insipid, you were grounded for a long time. You must have broken a serious rule. Mommy finally give your computer back? Are you allowed to go outside yet?
Is post is complete troll: 1. It was certainly inflammatory far moreso than mine 2. Absolutely off topic and it was intended to provoke a response from me and 3 it disrupted normal conversation.
Congratulations, troll, mission accomplished.
Thanks for all those sources, Jacobite they REALLY bolster my argument. Here’s Rawle saying that the militia is a military body:
In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
Oh nice. “I’m not the doody head, you’re the doody head!”
Nice rejoinder.
Oh yeah insipid I sought to only piss you off, not the whole TAH community.
You didn’t do well on compare/contrast assignments did you?
I think it would be incredibly funny if you are prelaw or in law school.
insipid: the POTUS has the authority to call out the Reserve components only because Congress has passed a law delegating him that authority, numbnuts. See 10 USC 12301 through 10 USC 12304. Absent those provisions of Federal law, Congress – not the President – would have to take action to order members of the Reserves to active duty.
Sheesh, you are either by abysmally ignorant or have an IQ somewhere around 90.
OK, insipid, let’s see how Federal law defined the “militia” in 1792, and how it’s defined in Federal law today.
2nd Militia Act of 1792, passed 8 May 1792; signed into law 28 February 1795
http://constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”
10 USC 311, effective today: (Google it yourself)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
In either case, the definition of militia included “every able bodied eligible male of military age”; today, that extends to females who are members of the National Guard as well. And if you’ll read the second italicized portion of the Militia Act of 1792, not only was every male citizen of military age a member of the militia – they were also technically required to own their own firearm and ammunition (along with other equipment), and to bring same with them when called to duty. What part of “every able bodied citizen of military age” is hard to understand.
By the way: if you’re a US citizen or plan to become one, that means you are a member of the militia, insipid. How’s that make ya feel? (smile)
Hondo, I admire, respect, and love your tenacity, sir.