NC Central is a predatory law school with a curve to 2.7. A student that can’t go to USC and ends up there is at a severe disadvantage financially.
OT: Michelle Childs - USC grad
- Thread starter nikolas22
- Start date
NC Central is a predatory law school with a curve to 2.7. A student that can’t go to USC and ends up there is at a severe disadvantage financially.
The smartest people I know have the least institutional education. Dale Earnhardt, a 10th grade dropout, created an empire and knew more about his profession than most anybody, was brilliant in more fields than racing. My dad was a high school graduate and created bomb sights, and a new kind of landing gear for bombers (planes, not people) in WWII and ended up drawing blue prints for machinery the old way (no computers). Steve Jobs dropped out of college early. Every person can create a list of brilliant people whose “formal” education is minimal that are super intelligent.
On the other hand, some of the stupidest people I know have multiple degrees. I spent a career in education and the field (particularly administrators) had plenty of dimwits.
Just saying what all of you already know.
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
So, President Biden (like others) is clearly violating the law by only considering black women for this position.
So why aren't you preaching for him to "be the adult" and set the example now like you demanded Republicans do for punishing their own in the House?
It doesn't apply to Presidential nominees or the executive branch. Plus, a nominee to the judicial branch is not an executive branch employee. I mean there are all sorts of problems with that reasoning.
The constitution doesn't think very much of one branch of government forcing another branch to do something. The ole "separation of powers" deal.
That's why it's such a huge deal when Congress tries to force the President to do something. In very, very limited circumstances, will the current executive branch have to comply.
If not, the legislative branch could pass a law saying the President has to do what they say. So that dog don't hunt.
Sorry.
Now, there is an Act that passed Congress that says the Executive branch will submit a plan to address the hiring of disabled employees. But those are for executive branch employees, no judicial branch employees.
I think Biden is being the adult in the room here. He promised to nominate a black female to try to correct a wrong and he's going to fulfil that promise no matter how many folks hate that he's going to do it and stick to it like he should. Heck, I agree with Lindsey Graham on this one.
Plus, I didn't demand Republicans do anything. I stated each side should punish their own- and then I said I didn't like it that Democrats punished Paul Gosar.
You are the one that said it was "fair" punishment for the Democrats to punish a Republican. Not me.
I know what you are saying. I know plenty of smart people that did not go to college.
I know plenty of smart people that did go to college.
I know people - like my grandpa who has passed away- that didn't finish high school that were very smart and wise and was a true "life long learner" who never quit trying learn from others, read as much as he could before macular degeneration took most of his eyesight, etc.
But I know my grandpa preferred to lean on folks like engineers, doctors, etc when he needed certain expertise and he greatly valued formal education.
But he valued hard workers no matter what type of formal education they had. I do too.
This, it isn't the place of the court to tell the president he did something wrong with his enumerated powers by the Constitution.
interesting debate.....reminds me of the ones we used to have in law school.
Is the introductory clause in the 2nd Amendment prefatory or is it a condition precedent? That has been debated by very intelligent men and women for many years. The founders and authors of the Bill of Rights wrote less about the 2nd Amendment than any other....leaving the whole issue up to debate.
And anyone calling others idiots or stupid on this issue are simply wrong.
Is the introductory clause in the 2nd Amendment prefatory or is it a condition precedent? That has been debated by very intelligent men and women for many years. The founders and authors of the Bill of Rights wrote less about the 2nd Amendment than any other....leaving the whole issue up to debate.
And anyone calling others idiots or stupid on this issue are simply wrong.
Last edited:
This is some interesting logic. They wrote the sentence extremely clearly. Just because you and others choose to misinterpret the language doesn't mean it was left up for debate.
The idea that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to militias is a modern thought that only started in the 70s.
That is a product because the DC Circuit court is made up of mostly liberal activist judges who are not originalist or constitutionalist.
An "activist" judge is a judge that makes a decision that someone doesn't like.
Both sides attack 'activist" judges. Conservatives attack "activist" judges accusing them of making a decision that isn't constitutional and Liberals attack "activist" judges accusing them of making a decision that isn't constitutional.
You can see this on display most often when judges perceived as conservative disagree with other conservative judges and liberal judges disagreeing with other liberal judges.
ON THE SCOTUS, as I said above, you see this most often with judges like Gorsuch or Alito disagreeing with Thomas.
It's like arguing with the mirror.
You do understand what a condition precedent is, right?
It actually is the key to your argument.
Yeah, I'm sure the discussion back then went like this.
"Hey, I know we are fighting a war right now to get out from under a tyrannical government, but let's put some language in here to give our new government the right to restrict the gun ownership by citizens. You now, to insure a free State. A tyrant could never happen here. I mean, I know it's happened almost everywhere in the world over and over since the beginning of recorded time, but it could never happen here. We can just put 'shall not be infringed' in there but people will completely understand that we mean except by the government. "
lol
"Hey, I know we are fighting a war right now to get out from under a tyrannical government, but let's put some language in here to give our new government the right to restrict the gun ownership by citizens. You now, to insure a free State. A tyrant could never happen here. I mean, I know it's happened almost everywhere in the world over and over since the beginning of recorded time, but it could never happen here. We can just put 'shall not be infringed' in there but people will completely understand that we mean except by the government. "
lol
The second amendment was written for the states to defend against tyranny, not individuals. That's a pretty big point you're failing to understand.
What your failing to understand is that argument is highly contested amongst scholars. Even if you choose not to believe it.
It really wasn't until the 90s and 2000s when conservative lobbyists got involved.
It was a pretty hot issue when Reagan enacted gun regulations while he was Governor of California.
Even if you do bend over enough to believe that, you just admitted that the Feds have no Constitutional justification for any type of gun control at their level.
But I think they were pretty clear when they said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
The fact you keep leaving off the beginning part of the amendment is telling.
And you're showing your lack of nuance. The federal government have no constitutional right to control guns on militia members. However, state governments could limit their own militias and anyone else they wished.
I think that she has a good chance. She is strongly supported by James Clyburn and Lindsey Graham, among many others. Biden desperately needs to make a good decision if he wants to run in 2024, and Clyburn is the person who is primarily responsible for putting him in office.
LOL. No. When they referred to "the people", they meant "the people". Not "the people" that some government, any government, has approved. Not a chance they would allow any government to disarm it's citizens for any reason. If anybody understood the dangers of that, it was those guys. They absolutely felt they people needed the ability to fight back against their own government, like they themselves were doing at the time.
There is a reason why your insanely narrow interpretation of the 2A never came to life for 200 years. It's simply a product of the liberal gungrabber mentality, whose agenda is just as tyrannical as the agenda the founding fathers were fighting against.
This shows a lack of knowledge of the framer's intent and lack of understanding of society at the time. The state was thought of as the people because they were more closely connected and controlled by the people.
My narrow interpretation of the second amendment was literally the de facto interpretation and supported by all precedent until 2008.
I have a number of weapons and I have my concealed weapons permit. I rarely ever carry a gun with me (never needed one either) but I am glad I have several in my home (always locked and secured).
But I am a proponent of waiting periods, and background checks on all gun purchases.
However, I do not see a way within the law to prevent family members or friends from giving guns to other family members of friends. It's just not practical.
Now, I will say I think anyone -and I MEAN ANYONE- is a crazy and should be held liable under the law if they give or sell a gun to someone they know to be dangerous, or mentally incapable of owning a handgun properly.
About 5 years ago, I purchased a pistol from a good friend of mine- a guy I had known for 20 years.
My friend required me to give him a copy of my driver's license and sign a statement he typed up that said I was legally allowed to own a firearm, that I had no criminal record that would prevent me from owing a firearm, and that I would use the gun lawfully and would not hold him responsible for any gun malfunctions, and that the gun, after inspection by me, was in good, safe working order.
He told me he'd keep my signed statement along with the copy of my license with his records for rest of his life. Yes- Really.
I told him I appreciated him being so careful and doing the right thing and that I wouldn't have bought the gun otherwise. I was glad to do business with someone that careful.
Our laws are too weak on punishment for gun crimes and people that are prevented from law to own a gun- especially in South Carolina.
But I am a proponent of waiting periods, and background checks on all gun purchases.
However, I do not see a way within the law to prevent family members or friends from giving guns to other family members of friends. It's just not practical.
Now, I will say I think anyone -and I MEAN ANYONE- is a crazy and should be held liable under the law if they give or sell a gun to someone they know to be dangerous, or mentally incapable of owning a handgun properly.
About 5 years ago, I purchased a pistol from a good friend of mine- a guy I had known for 20 years.
My friend required me to give him a copy of my driver's license and sign a statement he typed up that said I was legally allowed to own a firearm, that I had no criminal record that would prevent me from owing a firearm, and that I would use the gun lawfully and would not hold him responsible for any gun malfunctions, and that the gun, after inspection by me, was in good, safe working order.
He told me he'd keep my signed statement along with the copy of my license with his records for rest of his life. Yes- Really.
I told him I appreciated him being so careful and doing the right thing and that I wouldn't have bought the gun otherwise. I was glad to do business with someone that careful.
Our laws are too weak on punishment for gun crimes and people that are prevented from law to own a gun- especially in South Carolina.
Pretty much agree with everything you said DeeDave.
I've had my concealed carry for years. However, I do carry pretty much wherever I can legally. If it comes down to me or someone else, it's going to be someone else if I can at all help it. Hope I NEVER have to use it, but prepared to (at least as much as a person can be).
The problem isn't with concealed carry holders. You have to have a clean criminal record in order to get it. Had a highway patrolman tell me that if someone has their permit, they really don't worry, because that person doesn't have a criminal record. The problem is with guns that are sold by criminals to each other. There's really nothing that you can do about it either. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws don't have waiting periods, paperwork, etc., you get what you want when you want it in the criminal underground.
I need mine to protect me from "outlaws", because when you need them most, help (the police) are only a short 10-15 minutes away. Surely nothing bad will happen in that time period.
I've had my concealed carry for years. However, I do carry pretty much wherever I can legally. If it comes down to me or someone else, it's going to be someone else if I can at all help it. Hope I NEVER have to use it, but prepared to (at least as much as a person can be).
The problem isn't with concealed carry holders. You have to have a clean criminal record in order to get it. Had a highway patrolman tell me that if someone has their permit, they really don't worry, because that person doesn't have a criminal record. The problem is with guns that are sold by criminals to each other. There's really nothing that you can do about it either. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Outlaws don't have waiting periods, paperwork, etc., you get what you want when you want it in the criminal underground.
I need mine to protect me from "outlaws", because when you need them most, help (the police) are only a short 10-15 minutes away. Surely nothing bad will happen in that time period.
Like others have stated, I also have a concealed. If I’m leaving my house, I am carrying. Also have a side arm in my truck on top of my concealed. Some would call me paranoid until they ended up needing it. You never know what kind of situation you are going to find yourself in and I want to do everything I can to protect myself and my family. I practice religiously with firearms. So does my wife and I have no doubts that if she was put in a situation she would know what to do.
If they considered the "state" to be inclusive of the people, then wouldn't that portion of the 10th amendment be superfluous?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If the states was inclusive of the term "the people", wouldn't the last phrase be unnecessary?
Funny you should use the word superfluous because Madison himself admitted the amendment itself was superfluous because all it did was restate the intent of federalism.
And the the “or to the people” was actually added by the clerk of the senate after the senate voted and passed the bill to the house. So it was never meant to enumerate rights to individuals. That’s why the 10th is always used for states rights.
What's relevant TODAY is that the President of the United States is leveraging rights granted to communications (tech) and news companies to label his critics as misinformation. He's also tried to illegally use OSHA to mandate an experimental device on the private sector. This is a war on American Values and the rule of law directly from the Oval Offfice. In actuality, it's the Oval Office and it's departments that have repeatedly pushed misinformation - from Gain-Of-Function research to Immigration, Trade and Inflation Policy.
I have no issue with that at all.
I honestly just have never been in a situation where I even thought I might need my gun. I've avoided places that I thought I might could need it.
I had an officer tell me one time- and maybe he was making it up - but he said if I (or my family) wasn't involved in using drugs, selling drugs, or buying drugs, the chances of me ever needing my gun for self defense would be incredibly low.
The only time I've thought I would want to have it is if I were eating at a restaurant beside an interstate late at night- like a Waffle House.
I don't go get gas at 10pm at night like I did when I was 22- which is always sort of an interesting experience. I tell my kids not to do that either.
oh - and like my friend did with me- I would not sell a gun to anyone that I had ANY REMOTE DOUBT about as far as their background, or intentions. I just wouldn't do it. But that's me.
It is clear that he does not. Amendments to the constitution are not easy to do. They would not have gone through the trouble just to say that armies can have guns.
It's strange how people see things.
See, I saw many of Trump's actions as illegal, misinformation, and a ruse. I also remember how Trump personally pressured people to fire on air commentators he didn't like.
and like Obama before him, used his power to spy on reporters.
I see every President go way beyond acceptable boundaries.
Trump Administration Secretly Seized Phone Records of Times Reporters (Published 2021)
The admission by the Biden Justice Department followed similar recent disclosures to The Washington Post and CNN.
People are different and have different values.
Last edited:
They're not saying the armies can have gun. There was no standing army.
It was an amendment to allow the militias to be armed to combat a potential standing army.
If you want to argue a condition precedent in your favor, you're flipping the order.
Not that strange. Most moderate Democrats are disgusted with this adminstration. I wasn't a big Trump fan either but these people are in a class by themselves.It's strange how people see things.
See, I saw many of Trump's actions as illegal, misinformation, and a ruse. I also remember how Trump personally pressured people to fire on air commentators he didn't like.
and like Obama before him, used his power to spy on reporters.
I see every President go way beyond acceptable boundaries.
Trump Administration Secretly Seized Phone Records of Times Reporters (Published 2021)
The admission by the Biden Justice Department followed similar recent disclosures to The Washington Post and CNN.www.nytimes.com
People are different and have different values.
But militias were made up of ordinary citizens and needed their own firearms. That's why "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bare arms SHALL NOT be infringed."
Let's hear from the Founding Fathers on this subject . They are pretty clear about intent.
Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Haven't checked all the quotes for their context, but this one was over a property tax dispute that Pennsylvania was about to settle with the Penn family of England that Franklin accurately believed benefitted the Penn family too greatly. Pretty famous quote in tax law.
The quote was.....that was where I copied it from....but the context of the quote was not included. Quotes without context as to what the writer or speaker was referring to mean little....people like to apply quotes to situations for which the writer/speaker did not intend it to be.
