DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
NeoConfederate States fo AMerica
HTML https://ncsa.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Supreme Court
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4817--------------------------------------------------
Constitutional Question
By: Aquatur Date: July 20, 2015, 8:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can the Court please clarify for us Article II Section XIV and
what that Section encompasses. More importantly, I ask the Court
to define the right bear and keep arms and a well regulated
militia and explain to us what their difference is.
Will the Court allow for Amicus Curiae?
#Post#: 4837--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: david090366 Date: July 21, 2015, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The section has two operative clauses. 1) A well regulated
militia. Obviously referring to a fighting force of some type.
2)The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. In other words the citizenry should be armed. In the
early U.S. this was done to fight "governmental tyranny".
Read this.
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#Civilian_control_of_a_peacetime_army
#Post#: 4857--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Confederacy of Turkducken Date: July 21, 2015, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OOC: I think he wants the Court to debate the Constitutionality
of Militias or at least reach a legal judgment of how far they
go.
#Post#: 4862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Aquatur Date: July 21, 2015, 8:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Confederacy of Turkducken
link=topic=577.msg4857#msg4857 date=1437517455]
OOC: I think he wants the Court to debate the Constitutionality
of Militias or at least reach a legal judgment of how far they
go.
[/quote]
The latter, what with the debate going on in Congress.
For example:
[quote author=Gondor link=topic=426.msg3393#msg3393
date=1436195873]
Representative Ham Wesley stood, clearly disturbed. His hands
shook as he spoke, and he made his point crystal clear. "The
Constitution on which our nation was founded clearly states that
the states are sovereign. We have the right to do as we please,
and our rights are protected. This bill is horridly
unconstitutional, and it will not hold up in the Supreme Court,
I guarantee it. While I hate WMDs and what they may do, states
are sovereign and have the right to develop them, albeit at
their own risk. Gondor is a nuclear power, and will not see
states who do not have what we do trying to take away what we
built to defend ourselves in a time that seemed very scary to
us. I dream of a world without WMDs, but this is not the way. To
blatantly violate the Constitution to push a political agenda
only opens up the precedent to do it over and over again, until
our nation is a lawless place like the wild west, with no moral
compass or lawful foundation upon which to stand. I wish that
all the nuclear weapon wielding states would come together and
disarm together, and take a step towards a more peaceful region,
without violating the sacred principles on which this nation was
founded. For Congress to mandate that states give up their
nuclear weapons is to violate the sovereignty of the states and
the Constitution."
[quote=Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution] At no time
shall the institutions established by this Constitution be
understood to have sovereignty over any one of the states or the
several states but shall be understood as exercising authority
delegated to them by the states.[/quote]
After quoting that portion of the Constitution, the
representative continued, "The actual right of the states to
produce weapons, not specifying what kind mind you, are also
protected by the Constitution."
[quote=Article III, Section 14 of the Constitution]A
well-regulated militia being necessary go the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed.[/quote]
"So you see, ladies and gentlemen of Congress, that this bill is
wholly unconstitutional in the fact that the right to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed. To take away nuclear weapons
is obviously infringing upon that right, and I will not tolerate
it. It is for these reasons that I shall never consent to this
bill, and I vehemently opposed it, in the name of the People of
the NeoConfederate States of America and in the name of the
sovereignty of my very own State, Gondor."
Representative Wesley then let out a sigh of relief,sweat
visibly perspiring from his brow. He wiped his face off with a
handkerchief and took a sip of ice water, because he needed it
desperately. He would never stop defending the rights of the
People or the sovereignty of the states, no matter how
despicable it was. The rule of law was what it was, and it had
to be upheld. To him, this crusade was sacred.
[/quote]
If you look at the second quote, the representative from Gondor
is referring to the right to bear arms by the State not the
people. I would like to clarify this. As well as, define well
regulated militia.
#Post#: 4863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Heavenly Paradise Date: July 21, 2015, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In my interpretation, both the People and the States have the
right to keep and bear arms. The people individually, and the
states through militias.
#Post#: 4864--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Confederacy of Turkducken Date: July 21, 2015, 9:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The major question that would settle this definitely is does the
Constitution contain an elastic clause? If so then we have the
validity to debate Constitutional limitations, if it does not
then we do not have any authority.
#Post#: 4865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Aquatur Date: July 21, 2015, 9:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We should really wait for a Justice :P
#Post#: 4867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: West Phoenicia Date: July 21, 2015, 11:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We are still waiting for the President to release the name of
the Justices.
#Post#: 4869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: Heavenly Paradise Date: July 21, 2015, 11:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to the Supreme Court Justices, who were appointed
by President Albert Dawning.
HTML http://ncsa.createaforum.com/capitol-building/presidential-cabinet-list-may-20-2015/
#Post#: 4873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Constitutional Question
By: david090366 Date: July 22, 2015, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am a Justice, ;D[quote author=Confederacy of Turkducken
link=topic=577.msg4864#msg4864 date=1437530679]
The major question that would settle this definitely is does the
Constitution contain an elastic clause? If so then we have the
validity to debate Constitutional limitations, if it does not
then we do not have any authority.
[/quote]
This is as close as it gets
Section 10: Congress shall have the sole authority to make law,
declare war, make treaties , and impeach members of the
government. When the President of the NeoConfederate States of
America is impeached, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no
person shall be impeached without the concurrence of two-thirds
of the members present. Grounds for impeachment shall be
unseemly behavior, criminal activity, or inactivity.
There is no Necessary and Proper Clause.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page