Plaxico Burress pleads guilty, gets two years in prison

[BigDanz2000]

I love when people spout the words of the Constitution like it is the end all of all law.

Didn't the Constitution count blacks as 3/5 of a person and forbid women from voting. The Constitution was a starting point as as society progresses, so should the rights decreed by the Constitution.

There are gun laws that restrict the bearing of arms and those must be taken into consideration in all cases. Otherwise I could arm myself with a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon and it would be legal.

Technically the first part was amended.

The second part is absolutely true. One could read the 2nd Amendment and come to that conclusion.

So other federal laws and state laws that further restrict the possession of fire arms are unconstitutional? gee that's funny, I would have thought that the Supreme Court would have already ruled against such laws and they haven't.

People are under a quaint notion that the Supreme Court doesn't trample on the Constitution whenever they feel like it

So what you are saying is that the only laws that govern this country should be the ones in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the other Amendments? Nothing else? Kinda crazy notion don't you think?

Well no. I'm not saying those should be the only laws. The founders knew nothing of the internet or nukes for example. And the Constitution is clear there can be state laws, it's just that the states can't take away your rights in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to bear arms (without an amendment). But the Supreme Court is happy to let some rights be taken away by using words like "reasonable" or making stuff up out of thin air and saying various things are in the Constitution that aren't there, so I guess to be fair sometimes they also give extra rights too.

But to put it a different way I definitely think the only laws should be laws coming from the legislative branch and definitely not the Judicial branch

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

[yall hate]

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

not to steer this away from Plax, but how can you uphold words without understanding them? how can a 200+ year old document address issues that werent understood or known at the time it was written?  Isnt there necessarily some form of interpretation that must be conducted when areas fall outside of the strict construction of the document?  Thats why I dont understand the viewpoint of strict constructionists (I.e., Scalia).  Also, is conservative interpretation bad,  or just liberal interpretation?


Back to Plax, I made some comments up thread about his not being used as an example, and I would like to say that I can see an argument that would suggest the contrary of my comments (I.e., that he was an example).  While I still have no problem with the sentence because he was guilty of the crime charged, the difference between 3rd degree possession in NY and 2nd degree possession (what Plax pled guilty to) are drastic. 

Second-degree possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon entails the mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years.  But third-degree possession -- a crime virtually identical to second-degree possession -- has no minimum sentence.

Of the defendants pleading guilty to third-degree possesion, 24 percent (i.e., nearly one out of four) were placed on probation and served no time in jail.  Another 41 percent served more than a year in jail, 24 percent served a year, 6 percent served less than one year, and another 6 percent served a mixture of jail and probation.  (We know that the total is 101 percent, probably due to rounding.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

[nickagneta]

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

not to steer this away from Plax, but how can you uphold words without understanding them? how can a 200+ year old document address issues that werent understood or known at the time it was written?  Isnt there necessarily some form of interpretation that must be conducted when areas fall outside of the strict construction of the document?  Thats why I dont understand the viewpoint of strict constructionists (I.e., Scalia).  Also, is conservative interpretation bad,  or just liberal interpretation?


Back to Plax, I made some comments up thread about his not being used as an example, and I would like to say that I can see an argument that would suggest the contrary of my comments (I.e., that he was an example).  While I still have no problem with the sentence because he was guilty of the crime charged, the difference between 3rd degree possession in NY and 2nd degree possession (what Plax pled guilty to) are drastic. 

Second-degree possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon entails the mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years.  But third-degree possession -- a crime virtually identical to second-degree possession -- has no minimum sentence.

Of the defendants pleading guilty to third-degree possesion, 24 percent (i.e., nearly one out of four) were placed on probation and served no time in jail.  Another 41 percent served more than a year in jail, 24 percent served a year, 6 percent served less than one year, and another 6 percent served a mixture of jail and probation.  (We know that the total is 101 percent, probably due to rounding.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

If I could give you two TP's for that post right away, I would have. First, I agree 100% with your comments regarding the need for interpretation and don't understand the strict constructionist view and guess I never will. Especially regarding the possession of arms. I do believe our forefathers never envisioned that part of the document leading to the amount of murders committed in this country 235 years later due to hand guns. I believe their intent was for the gathering of food and self protection as well as militia use during times when police departments, food supermarkets, and the stability of the government was not there.

Also, I breath of fresh air to see a poster actually post that they might have had a change of mind regarding a statement they made. It doesn't happen often and when it does it is deserving of a TP. So, in an hour I'll come back and give you your other well deserved TP.

[Eja117]

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

not to steer this away from Plax, but how can you uphold words without understanding them? how can a 200+ year old document address issues that werent understood or known at the time it was written?  Isnt there necessarily some form of interpretation that must be conducted when areas fall outside of the strict construction of the document?  Thats why I dont understand the viewpoint of strict constructionists (I.e., Scalia).  Also, is conservative interpretation bad,  or just liberal interpretation?


Back to Plax, I made some comments up thread about his not being used as an example, and I would like to say that I can see an argument that would suggest the contrary of my comments (I.e., that he was an example).  While I still have no problem with the sentence because he was guilty of the crime charged, the difference between 3rd degree possession in NY and 2nd degree possession (what Plax pled guilty to) are drastic. 

Second-degree possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon entails the mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years.  But third-degree possession -- a crime virtually identical to second-degree possession -- has no minimum sentence.

Of the defendants pleading guilty to third-degree possesion, 24 percent (i.e., nearly one out of four) were placed on probation and served no time in jail.  Another 41 percent served more than a year in jail, 24 percent served a year, 6 percent served less than one year, and another 6 percent served a mixture of jail and probation.  (We know that the total is 101 percent, probably due to rounding.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

If I could give you two TP's for that post right away, I would have. First, I agree 100% with your comments regarding the need for interpretation and don't understand the strict constructionist view and guess I never will. Especially regarding the possession of arms. I do believe our forefathers never envisioned that part of the document leading to the amount of murders committed in this country 235 years later due to hand guns. I believe their intent was for the gathering of food and self protection as well as militia use during times when police departments, food supermarkets, and the stability of the government was not there.

Also, I breath of fresh air to see a poster actually post that they might have had a change of mind regarding a statement they made. It doesn't happen often and when it does it is deserving of a TP. So, in an hour I'll come back and give you your other well deserved TP.

I actually totally agree with both of you that there is a need for interpretation, because of new things that come up such as the internet, etc. 
Also some of the Constitution is poorly written, needing interpretation.  What is a "militia"? What is a "well regulated" militia? What is "bear"? What is "arms"? Who are "people"? What is "infringed"?

I'm just saying sometimes the Supreme Court full well knowingly rules wrongly, on purpose, due to their own agendas and also make things up out of thin air. It's a political instution now, which is one major reason we see litmus test questions and no answers at confirmation hearings and 5-4 decisions. I'd do the same thing as the Supreme Court justices. The difference is that I admit it.

[nickagneta]

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

not to steer this away from Plax, but how can you uphold words without understanding them? how can a 200+ year old document address issues that werent understood or known at the time it was written?  Isnt there necessarily some form of interpretation that must be conducted when areas fall outside of the strict construction of the document?  Thats why I dont understand the viewpoint of strict constructionists (I.e., Scalia).  Also, is conservative interpretation bad,  or just liberal interpretation?


Back to Plax, I made some comments up thread about his not being used as an example, and I would like to say that I can see an argument that would suggest the contrary of my comments (I.e., that he was an example).  While I still have no problem with the sentence because he was guilty of the crime charged, the difference between 3rd degree possession in NY and 2nd degree possession (what Plax pled guilty to) are drastic. 

Second-degree possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon entails the mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years.  But third-degree possession -- a crime virtually identical to second-degree possession -- has no minimum sentence.

Of the defendants pleading guilty to third-degree possesion, 24 percent (i.e., nearly one out of four) were placed on probation and served no time in jail.  Another 41 percent served more than a year in jail, 24 percent served a year, 6 percent served less than one year, and another 6 percent served a mixture of jail and probation.  (We know that the total is 101 percent, probably due to rounding.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

If I could give you two TP's for that post right away, I would have. First, I agree 100% with your comments regarding the need for interpretation and don't understand the strict constructionist view and guess I never will. Especially regarding the possession of arms. I do believe our forefathers never envisioned that part of the document leading to the amount of murders committed in this country 235 years later due to hand guns. I believe their intent was for the gathering of food and self protection as well as militia use during times when police departments, food supermarkets, and the stability of the government was not there.

Also, I breath of fresh air to see a poster actually post that they might have had a change of mind regarding a statement they made. It doesn't happen often and when it does it is deserving of a TP. So, in an hour I'll come back and give you your other well deserved TP.

I actually totally agree with both of you that there is a need for interpretation, because of new things that come up such as the internet, etc. 
Also some of the Constitution is poorly written, needing interpretation.  What is a "militia"? What is a "well regulated" militia? What is "bear"? What is "arms"? Who are "people"? What is "infringed"?

I'm just saying sometimes the Supreme Court full well knowingly rules wrongly, on purpose, due to their own agendas and also make things up out of thin air. It's a political instution now, which is one major reason we see litmus test questions and no answers at confirmation hearings and 5-4 decisions. I'd do the same thing as the Supreme Court justices. The difference is that I admit it.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm but I might be wrong. Could you clarify that.

[Eja117]

The supreme court and all levels of the judicial branch were put in place to uphold the word of the Constitution and Bill of rights, not to interpret it. Period.  Yet everyone has their own personal belief system and what they deem to be correct and just.  Liberal interpretation is where it all went wrong. 

About Plax, it sucks, great talent. 

not to steer this away from Plax, but how can you uphold words without understanding them? how can a 200+ year old document address issues that werent understood or known at the time it was written?  Isnt there necessarily some form of interpretation that must be conducted when areas fall outside of the strict construction of the document?  Thats why I dont understand the viewpoint of strict constructionists (I.e., Scalia).  Also, is conservative interpretation bad,  or just liberal interpretation?


Back to Plax, I made some comments up thread about his not being used as an example, and I would like to say that I can see an argument that would suggest the contrary of my comments (I.e., that he was an example).  While I still have no problem with the sentence because he was guilty of the crime charged, the difference between 3rd degree possession in NY and 2nd degree possession (what Plax pled guilty to) are drastic. 

Second-degree possession of a loaded and unlicensed weapon entails the mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years.  But third-degree possession -- a crime virtually identical to second-degree possession -- has no minimum sentence.

Of the defendants pleading guilty to third-degree possesion, 24 percent (i.e., nearly one out of four) were placed on probation and served no time in jail.  Another 41 percent served more than a year in jail, 24 percent served a year, 6 percent served less than one year, and another 6 percent served a mixture of jail and probation.  (We know that the total is 101 percent, probably due to rounding.)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/

If I could give you two TP's for that post right away, I would have. First, I agree 100% with your comments regarding the need for interpretation and don't understand the strict constructionist view and guess I never will. Especially regarding the possession of arms. I do believe our forefathers never envisioned that part of the document leading to the amount of murders committed in this country 235 years later due to hand guns. I believe their intent was for the gathering of food and self protection as well as militia use during times when police departments, food supermarkets, and the stability of the government was not there.

Also, I breath of fresh air to see a poster actually post that they might have had a change of mind regarding a statement they made. It doesn't happen often and when it does it is deserving of a TP. So, in an hour I'll come back and give you your other well deserved TP.

I actually totally agree with both of you that there is a need for interpretation, because of new things that come up such as the internet, etc. 
Also some of the Constitution is poorly written, needing interpretation.  What is a "militia"? What is a "well regulated" militia? What is "bear"? What is "arms"? Who are "people"? What is "infringed"?

I'm just saying sometimes the Supreme Court full well knowingly rules wrongly, on purpose, due to their own agendas and also make things up out of thin air. It's a political instution now, which is one major reason we see litmus test questions and no answers at confirmation hearings and 5-4 decisions. I'd do the same thing as the Supreme Court justices. The difference is that I admit it.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm but I might be wrong. Could you clarify that.

That particular amendment is poorly written. It is so vague it's almost like they thought what they were writing was obvious. If they mean you can have as many weapons in your house as you like of any kind without restriction then they should have said that, because it's fairly obvious that based on what they wrote one could come to that conclusion. If they meant something less expansive, then they should have written that.

[nickagneta]

TP, thanks eja. That clears that up.

I also think that particular Amendment is the one that is most clearly out of line with societal progression. In the 18th century it was an absolute must that people have the right to "bear arms" as there was still Native Americans at war with the US, the French and British were still in colonization phases of their history, they were needed to provide meat on the table, each American was basically considered their own police force and wild animals roamed free and were still in abundance.

I don't seriously that the Founding Fathers had in mind what is happening nowadays as the reason for bearing arms.

[Eja117]

TP, thanks eja. That clears that up.

I also think that particular Amendment is the one that is most clearly out of line with societal progression. In the 18th century it was an absolute must that people have the right to "bear arms" as there was still Native Americans at war with the US, the French and British were still in colonization phases of their history, they were needed to provide meat on the table, each American was basically considered their own police force and wild animals roamed free and were still in abundance.

I don't seriously that the Founding Fathers had in mind what is happening nowadays as the reason for bearing arms.

I pretty much completely agree with you.  One thing I've been wondering lately is whether anyone back then tried to own a few cannons or something and they were basically like "No way. That's a WMD". 
I'd like to think that's why they left room for amendments, which I sometimes think is highly underused.