They’re Kidding, Right? Official Senate Web Page Trashes 2nd Amendment In Novel Inter

[downtownv]

Ohhhh, This explains it All!

http://personalliberty.com/2013/09/27/theyre-kidding-right-official-senate-web-page-trashes-2nd-amendment-in-novel-interpretation/

[knkali]

Well I can see that the webpage is available to all people of different views of the interpretation of what some amendments mean and the page reflects that. After all, it is still in debate as to what is defined in some amendments and some are constantly being pushed and pulled to their limits while decisions and opinions by courts are still being made. I know what the 2nd amendment means to me, many disagree and hence the problems we face today. I don't think what I read was all that surprising. Saddening but not surprising.

[b4uqzme]

"Legalese" is intentionally written to leave room for (mis)interpretation and confusion thus ensuring the profit-ability of the legal profession for eternity. In contrast, our founding documents are very carefully worded and intended to mean exactly what they say. Unfortunately our current society has a hard time accepting such clarity. IMHO.

[mr surveyor]

"Legalese" is intentionally written to leave room for (mis)interpretation and confusion thus ensuring the profit-ability of the legal profession for eternity. In contrast, our founding documents are very carefully worded and intended to mean exactly what they say. Unfortunately our current society has a hard time accepting such clarity. IMHO.



yep

[knkali]

"Legalese" is intentionally written to leave room for (mis)interpretation and confusion thus ensuring the profit-ability of the legal profession for eternity. In contrast, our founding documents are very carefully worded and intended to mean exactly what they say. Unfortunately our current society has a hard time accepting such clarity. IMHO.

+1000 but I view the legal profession as largely benefiting for an unaccepting society of said clarity not necessarily intentioned. If all people accepted the "clarity", the legal system wouldn't be needed at all and would not exist. Many people construe that the legal system works independently of the people. While we may not like the decisions from the legal system at times nor understand the lexicon and procedures fully, it is only in play because people demand its use. I recently was shafted as a plaintiff in a proceeding but I cannot think of a system anywhere in the world that is better than our own legal system at this juncture. BTW I am not an attorney.

[muggsy]

I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right in the Heller Case. It's settled law. What the link doesn't indicate is when this piece was written.

[b4uqzme]

+1000 but I view the legal profession as largely benefiting for an unaccepting society of said clarity not necessarily intentioned. If all people accepted the "clarity", the legal system wouldn't be needed at all and would not exist. Many people construe that the legal system works independently of the people. While we may not like the decisions from the legal system at times nor understand the lexicon and procedures fully, it is only in play because people demand its use. I recently was shafted as a plaintiff in a proceeding but I cannot think of a system anywhere in the world that is better than our own legal system at this juncture. BTW I am not an attorney.

All I know is the entire Constitution plus the Bill of Rights fits in a nice little book that fits in my shirt pocket compared to the obammycare bill that is more than 2000 pages that no one's ever read. I think it's intentionally confusing IMHO

[knkali]

All I know is the entire Constitution plus the Bill of Rights fits in a nice little book that fits in my shirt pocket compared to the obammycare bill that is more than 2000 pages that no one's ever read. I think it's intentionally confusing IMHO

If you use brevity as a measure of correctness, then your argument is true. However, please do not ignore that a possible reason for the complexity of the ACA is a result of patients, corporations, doctors, healthcare institutions, States, Et Al., want their interests protected and responsibilities outlined. The attorneys wrote it in that attempt. I do not think they deliberately made it complex so nobody would read it. If the 2nd amendment were to be written today, it would probably be as long. In short, these complexities are demanded for by the people and the legal system obliges the best they can not the other way around. That is just my take on things. Even when I review posts on this forum, many decree "lawyer up" when the going gets tough. We loathe attorneys but quickly run to them at the slightest dissatisfaction(s).

[knkali]

I thought that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right in the Heller Case. It's settled law. What the link doesn't indicate is when this piece was written.

Good point but the Heller case was 2008 and only addressed the right to have a gun in your home and in homes within federal enclaves. It did not address if individual states have the right to grant to citizens(outside the home and outside homes in federal enclaves) The McDonald vs Chicago(2010) case defined that based on the 14th amendment. So your argument that this should have been settled by the highest court in the land and should be reflected in that web page has merit but due to a different case.

As we all know, the gun laws are always getting challenged and therefore, the decisions and cases get more complex. Following the gun law cases and legislation on State and Federal levels is complicated. As long as people continue to challenge the amendment, this complexity will continue. Yet again, this complexity is a response from the challenges made by people. Lawyers are not making the challenges because they have nothing to do. These cases do not exist in a vacuum independent from anything.

[b4uqzme]

If you use brevity as a measure of correctness, then your argument is true. However, please do not ignore that a possible reason for the complexity of the ACA is a result of patients, corporations, doctors, healthcare institutions, States, Et Al., want their interests protected and responsibilities outlined. The attorneys wrote it in that attempt. I do not think they deliberately made it complex so nobody would read it. If the 2nd amendment were to be written today, it would probably be as long. In short, these complexities are demanded for by the people and the legal system obliges the best they can not the other way around. That is just my take on things. Even when I review posts on this forum, many decree "lawyer up" when the going gets tough. We loathe attorneys but quickly run to them at the slightest dissatisfaction(s).

Like I said. Our current society has a hard time accepting such clarity. Clear and concise gets your meaning across with less chance for misinterpretation. Our founders knew that.

[knkali]

Like I said. Our current society has a hard time accepting such clarity. Clear and concise gets your meaning across with less chance for misinterpretation. Our founders knew that.

It always amazes me how something so simple can be misinterpreted in so many ways. I can tell my employee(s) to take out the trash and clean the equipment and you would be shocked how that simple directive gets so turned around that nothing gets done. So I do agree with the above.