[Cialug] Telecom Immunity

[Kenneth Younger]

However, let's look at this from another perspective. The right to
privacy isn't explicitly stated because it was so inherent to the
founders' idea of freedom. The right to bear arms and protect one's
self from others, and especially from one's own government, was also
so inherent that they AT MOST tried to explicitly state it and AT
LEAST considered it inherent to a free society, just as a right to
privacy.

If you also consider the fact that the states have lost considerable
power since the Civil War, it might make sense to keep the power as
distributed as possible amongst the citizens.

-Kenny

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Colin Burnett <cmlburnett at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Todd Walton <tdwalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 9, 1788 at 11:19 PM, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
>>> I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in
>>> the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary
>>> in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would
>>> contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on
>>> this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than
>>> were granted.
>
> Clever quoting.
>
>> I'm not sure about this.  Without the Bill of Rights, politicians
>> might have found it easier throw it all out that much sooner.  Do you
>> think the Supreme Court could have affirmed a citizen's right to bear
>> arms last month if there wasn't an amendment supporting it?  Anti-gun
>> sentiment is so strong that we'd have been disarmed ages ago if not
>> for that amendment.
>
> Read Henderson's dissenting opinion in the court of appeals.  He
> strictly interprets the word "militia" to be militia of the states and
> since DC is not a state then the 2nd amendment doesn't apply.
> Henderson is clearly interpreting the presence of the 2nd amendment to
> deny the right of citizens to bear arms (something not, otherwise,
> mentioned).  James Madison is rolling in his grave because Henderson
> apparently doesn't know about the ninth amendment that was
> specifically put in the bill of rights to stave off people like
> Henderson.
>
> The supreme court upheld the 2nd amendment because its there.  I'd all
> but guarantee that if the 2nd amendment weren't there this issue would
> have been hashed out....oh 200 years ago.
>
>
> Colin
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>