It's a ban... we need to ban idiots Like Boxer.. Fientstein and Pelosi and Ried from ever opening their lips... they have no more right to talk than I have to buy any damn gun I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

---

I knew I had posted this somewhere before. In response to Cruz' remarks the Harvard Crimson offered an op-ed to future critics, don't enroll.

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

In other words you're OK with blatant intolerance toward conservatives in higher education and the free exercise of their first amendment rights.

The real question is where is a conservative to go to get a law degree ? Law schools are hotbeds of neo-progressivism . In fact most 4 year colleges in this country are . Took me years to cleanse the indoctrination from my head .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

Doesn't work if its Obama or Biden... neither of them are half as smart as they think they are.

Haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room after all he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

haven't you learned smoothy a leader doesn't have to be the brightest in the room afterall he has the best of the best of the best to select one of to run each program. How's that working out for you?

---

Fact is Obama picks people dumber than he is because his ego is so huge and so fragile.. he can't stand being second guessed or having smarter people around...

What you described is how it USED to be... and how it SHOULD be... unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

What you described is how it USED to be.....and how it SHOULD be....unfortunately the last 4 years is wasn't and the next 4 its unlikely to be.

---

Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Could it be the best of the best of the best are no longer available?

---

Oh they are still around... they just don't view Obama as the Messiah as is required to work for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Your righties have evey right to throw intellectual rocks, and we have every right to throw them back and add our own.

---

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdad

Try this rock then. If you read the bill it talks about "potential" and that goes a lot further then just the ones listed.

Im not sure why since it is suppose to be plain english its not understood unless you have blinders on.

---

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights... enumerates the rights of private individuals... NOT states.. not the Federal government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Lefties can't grasp the fact that the ENTIRE bill of rights...enumerates the rights of private individuals...NOT states..not the Federal government.

---

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again, anyone arguing that Cruz is arguing the absolute right to own any weapon is wrong. He has on more than occasion acknowledged restrictions so all this talk about absolutism is just political bluster...or in the case of Democrats a political fundraiser.

Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate Defeat the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 - Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate

---

That wasn't my criticism of Cruz. I understand that he is not arguing for an absolute right.

My argument here is that Heller is of little value when arguing against bans and limitations for the future. I would argue this is because Heller is limited in its scope.

To suggest Heller is somehow a link to first Amendment rights in terms of 'scope' is to fail to understand the difference between natural rights and civil rights

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

This is patently false.

What is not understood is that the First Amendment is ostensibly natural rights while the Second Amendment deals with civil rights.

Your history show this to be the case. When it comes to natural rights rights most limitations are very difficult to impose because these rights are seen to have a degree of universality about them.

Civil rights are those rights that come about through a civic process. As such they are amenable to the civil process of limitations and restrictions. SCOTUS has already acknowledged several times that restrictions and limitations are within the parameters of the Second Amendment.

It is incorrect to say that all rights are interpreted as only pertaining to the individual.

---

Rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . Not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people.. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .

Strange Tom not a King in sight and yet you cling to the quaint intrepretation of events

The road to serfdom is paved with liberal progressive intentions

Serf ;now there is a quaint notion, has there ever been a serf in North America, probably not since the spanish grande, no wait, all those on minimum wages are serfs, you could get all those job creators to pay the cash out as dividends, that way they share it with their rich mates and your 401(k) accounts, better still they could pay higher wages

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

rights are for individuals ;powers are for states and individuals . not even in the 10th amendment is the word rights used in connection to the states powers .
The 9th amendment also clearly uses rights for the people .. not the state .
The fact that the founders deemed it important enough to add the 2nd amendment to the "Bill of Rights " makes it clear that any reference to the right to bear arms is an individual right .

That view is also in Heller where they did refer to the 1689 English Bill of Rights "clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia" and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the King .
However , like the British Bill of Rights ;the right to bear arms is not absolute . But neither is any of the other rights .

---

Yes, I know all of this.

The criticism I am making is the blurring of the distinction when it comes to natural rights and civil rights. Rights are of course for individuals. In the case of civil rights these rights are granted by the state. Natural rights are different because exist outside of state control.This is only almost true because (as you point out) no rights are absolute despite natural rights claiming a element of universality.

The right to arms is a civil right it is not a natural right. There is no natural right to bear arms except perhaps for the 1689 Bill. But as you point out Heller has established it as an individual right to bear arms. Again, I am not disputing the individuality of the decision. This has little or nothing do with my argument on Heller.

If I made it sound like states have rights then this was not my intention. Courts historically courts have trod very carefully when it comes to rights such as freedom of speech and religion. Historically, rights granted to the individual by the state tend to be the most regulated and subject to constant revision. This explains why the right to bear arms has so many federal and state regulations attached to it. If it were a natural right then this would not be tolerated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What speech said .. even if CLS was but one course for credit ,a significant number of professors at Harvard have it as their ideological foundation. Harvard Law is an advanced degree,not undergraduate . One of the few things that have been discovered about our President's past was which people influenced the direction he took . Unger is right up there with Bill Ayers ,and Obama's early mentor Frank Marshall Davis .

---

Yes, Speech makes a good point when he talks about it in terms of proponents.

Interestingly enough many of our universities still offer law as an undergraduate and postgraduate qualification. I also believe this is under the process of change at the moment.

I googled Harvard Law School. Apparently there are some 400 plus courses being offered with an teaching staff of about 245. According to your calculations and/or the posted articles calculations, what percentage of teaching staff would be proponents of CLS? Fifty percent, sixty percent, or seventy percent? Perhaps even higher?