Comments on: Brad Johnson: Constitutional Scholar http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/ Serving Up Snark Since 2005 Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:53:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mark D http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-47183 Mark D Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:12:08 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-47183 Some of you people are sorry idiots. The intent of the US Constitution is to bind the federal government to preserve it as a servant of the people and to prevent it from becoming a fearful master. Some of you people are sorry idiots. The intent of the US Constitution is to bind the federal government to preserve it as a servant of the people and to prevent it from becoming a fearful master.

]]> By: Pogie http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45507 Pogie Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:17:12 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45507 I find the federalism argument to be one of the least compelling pieces of conservative ideology. They advocate states' rights when it comes to issues like challenging the ADA and opposing civil rights legislation, but when it comes to fundamental questions of rights, they are strangely silent. I find the federalism argument to be one of the least compelling pieces of conservative ideology. They advocate states’ rights when it comes to issues like challenging the ADA and opposing civil rights legislation, but when it comes to fundamental questions of rights, they are strangely silent.

]]> By: Moorcat http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45464 Moorcat Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:27:50 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45464 I usually agree with most of what you post here but I have to disagree with this one. It is an interesting argument - regardless of how you feel about Mr. Johnson. It is also an argument echoed by other government officials in at least seven other states. The question of Federalism VS State rights is still one that gets tossed around a lot and there hasn't really been a decent solution to the issue. As far as whether it will effect the Supreme Court's deliberations on the DC case will only be answered in time.. Moorcat I usually agree with most of what you post here but I have to disagree with this one. It is an interesting argument – regardless of how you feel about Mr. Johnson. It is also an argument echoed by other government officials in at least seven other states.

The question of Federalism VS State rights is still one that gets tossed around a lot and there hasn’t really been a decent solution to the issue.

As far as whether it will effect the Supreme Court’s deliberations on the DC case will only be answered in time..

Moorcat

]]> By: Pogie http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45454 Pogie Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:25:42 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45454 That's an interesting interpretation of the Constitution, Carl. I assume that your support of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights is equally categorical. So, no regulation of speech at all? That’s an interesting interpretation of the Constitution, Carl. I assume that your support of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights is equally categorical. So, no regulation of speech at all?

]]> By: Carl Donath http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45450 Carl Donath Fri, 22 Feb 2008 16:08:46 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45450 "If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government." The federal government may NOT choose to regulate guns because the federal constitution explicitly prohibits it, so guns can NOT be regulated by the federal government. “If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government.”

The federal government may NOT choose to regulate guns because the federal constitution explicitly prohibits it, so guns can NOT be regulated by the federal government.

]]> By: Shane C. Mason http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45446 Shane C. Mason Fri, 22 Feb 2008 05:31:11 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45446 Absurdity. Absolute absurdity. Absurdity. Absolute absurdity.

]]> By: Zygos Community Links http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45445 Zygos Community Links Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:33:39 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45445 <strong>Live Free Or Die ... Silly?...</strong> Members of the Montana legislature (out of session) appear to be attempting to force the Supreme Court's hand in a fairly landmark gun-control case, Heller v. DC. Through an extra-session resolution, they are invoking contract law, by stating that th... Live Free Or Die … Silly?…

Members of the Montana legislature (out of session) appear to be attempting to force the Supreme Court’s hand in a fairly landmark gun-control case, Heller v. DC. Through an extra-session resolution, they are invoking contract law, by stating that th…

]]> By: stillonmt http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45444 stillonmt Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:17:31 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45444 The Montana constitution does not affect the power of the federal government. If affects the power of the state and local government. While one may have a state constitutional right (such as a right to privacy) it does not mean that the Montana constitution prohibits the federal government from spying on Montana citizens. This is a really stupid letter. If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government. The Montana constitution does not affect the power of the federal government. If affects the power of the state and local government. While one may have a state constitutional right (such as a right to privacy) it does not mean that the Montana constitution prohibits the federal government from spying on Montana citizens. This is a really stupid letter. If the federal government chooses to regulate guns and the federal constitution does not prohibit it, then guns can be regulated by the federal government.

]]> By: steve kelly http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45443 steve kelly Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:10:57 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45443 There are many more interesting arguments to be made in support of secession. If we can't become a state, maybe a nation state could be Montana's destiny. There are many more interesting arguments to be made in support of secession. If we can’t become a state, maybe a nation state could be Montana’s destiny.

]]> By: Carl Donath http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/comment-page-1/#comment-45441 Carl Donath Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:36:20 +0000 http://intelligentdiscontent.com/2008/02/21/brad-johnson-constitutional-scholar/#comment-45441 Perhaps the MT SG's mundane-sounding letter should be a reminder that the ultimate issues of governance are not controlled by an intellectually advanced nuanced understanding of a half-million words of legal briefs (submitted to SCOTUS regarding _DC_v_Heller_ alone), but by a simple visceral choice to cooperate - or not. This nation came into existence not by popular vote nor by elaborate legal constructs, but by a minority who decided to not be subjects of a rights-trampling entity. Be reminded as well that Mr. Johnson is not the only "illiterate hillbilly" currently sharing that sentiment. Perhaps the MT SG’s mundane-sounding letter should be a reminder that the ultimate issues of governance are not controlled by an intellectually advanced nuanced understanding of a half-million words of legal briefs (submitted to SCOTUS regarding _DC_v_Heller_ alone), but by a simple visceral choice to cooperate – or not. This nation came into existence not by popular vote nor by elaborate legal constructs, but by a minority who decided to not be subjects of a rights-trampling entity. Be reminded as well that Mr. Johnson is not the only “illiterate hillbilly” currently sharing that sentiment.

]]>