Breyer: Madison wrote 2nd Amendment to appease the states

posted at 10:12 am on December 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It’s not just the Constitution that is a “living document,” as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer proved yesterday when discussing the Second Amendment.  Breyer argued that James Madison only included the right to bear arms reluctantly, and only because the states wouldn’t sign the Constitution for fear of creating an overmighty central government.  That’s why he voted against the majority in the Heller decision that overturned the federal handgun ban in Washington DC:

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.

Madison “was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. ‘That can’t happen,’ said Madison,” said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison’s priority as, “I’ve got to get this document ratified.”

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”

That’s a mighty big if, and it depends on ignoring the entire context of colonial life.  The founders didn’t envision government on any level being able to utterly secure public safety, not even in the cities.  Families needed guns for self-defense, and not just on the frontier from animals and hostile Native Americans and French and Spanish explorers, either.  Then, as now, if families waited for the local constabulary to protect them from thieves and marauders, they’d find themselves either dead or homeless in short order.

Madison also considered the right to bear arms an important check on federal power, too, and didn’t reluctantly come to that position to appease the states into signing the Constitution.  All Breyer needed to do to discover this was actually read Madison on the subject in Federalist 46, where Madison makes clear the role of states and men at arms in keeping the central government from overwhelming their sovereignty, emphases mine:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. 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. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

That doesn’t sound at all like a man who had to reluctantly guarantee that Americans would have those arms at hand in the extremity of need.  Indeed, Madison makes his case poetically clear that the individual liberties the Constitution guaranteed against federal incursion were in fact guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  Breyer’s argument is fanciful at best, and self-serving to an inordinate degree.

Update: The American Pundit adds an important argument — so what?

But there’s another point here: Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.

Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.

To say that’s a dangerous precedent is probably the biggest understatement on this blog. That would mean a judge could decide you no longer have the right to free speech or freedom of the press because, hey, those rights were only included to appease one group needed for ratification.

There is a difference between treating a constitution of any form as a philosophical statement and as a legal document.  The former is open for interpretation, while the latter should be used textually in order to make compliance and enforcement plain.  We have always considered the Constitution to be the foundational legal document of the United States, and that’s how the court should use it as well.  The Second Amendment, and everything else that’s in the Constitution, should be assumed to mean what it says, and if Congress and the states find that problematic, then they can amend it through the processes the Constitution prescribes for that purpose.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8

the people of this country will not be ruled by unelected robed tyrants.

chasdal on December 13, 2010 at 5:44 PM

yeah it will…its been going on for 200 years now since marbury v. madison….

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM

I have long black hair, but my abs do look like Batman’s.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

You have Adam West’s body?

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM

just laughable. talk about obsessed…all of you please get some professional help.

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM

So much for apologizing.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:05 PM

So much for apologizing.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:05 PM

from your comments it was casting pearls before swine.

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM

You have Adam West’s body?

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Not yet.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:08 PM

Not yet.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:08 PM

But you have his DNA, right?

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM

from your comments it was casting pearls before swine.

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM

From yours, it was obvious you never meant it. I still haven’t personally insulted you. I’m not even sure what’s got you upset at me now. That I believe you’re black and male? Would it be better to assume you’re lying about that? Or is it that I think you might be in your 20s or 30s? Is that too old and thus offensive, or too young and thus… isn’t that generally a complement?

Whatever. I’m sure there was something horribly offensive in that comment at 5:44pm. There’s just no other explanation.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM

I really don’t care what you think, about me or anything else.

get over it…I tried…you would never extend the same courtesy to me.

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I have long black hair

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM

Not my favorite look.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

But you have his DNA, right?

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM

No. Weirdo.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Not my favorite look.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

I could cut it!

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM

No. Weirdo.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM

You liked that about me last night!

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM

What?? If more voters are women, then women have MORE “political power.”

blink on December 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM

yeah….logic is not strong in this one…

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM

You liked that about me last night!

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Getting weirder and creepier…

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:16 PM

This actually has some truth to it because the Mormons are already here, not in some far-off desert.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Yeah, those damn Mormons who hit us on 9/11.

You’re a ****ing lunatic, D-S.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

I really don’t care what you think, about me or anything else.

And yet you can’t help but comment on my innocuous comment and claim it proves you were throwing jewelry at a pig? That doesn’t make any sense.

get over it…I tried…you would never extend the same courtesy to me.

right4life on December 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM

You never tried. You denied ever having done such a thing right before supposedly apologizing for it after months and months of coming into these threads and bringing up conversations from over two years ago even when I refrained from even talking to you lest it be seen as somehow insulting you.

Even still, I’m not insulting you personally, while you’re calling my mental health into question. How is that proof you’ve extended some courtesy or that you’ve gotten over anything? I’m already doing a favor for you that I don’t expect returned.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM

You would cut your hair to please Esthier?

blink on December 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM

Yes. So would you.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Good Lord, what the hell have I stumbled into?

darwin on December 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Good Lord, what the hell have I stumbled into?

darwin on December 13, 2010 at 6:44 PM

Yeah, this topic should be dragged out back and shot.

Quick, before Breyer takes all the guns.

Rebar on December 13, 2010 at 6:49 PM

Numerically, but not in terms of political power.

crr6 on December 13, 2010 at 5:22 PM

Somebody has truly partaken in the RadFem KoolAid. You’re frickin sad .

CWforFreedom on December 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM

I could say the exact same thing about the right-wingers running about screaming “the Islamists are coming! the Islamists are coming!”

This actually has some truth to it because the Mormons are already here, not in some far-off desert.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Yes those those radical Mormons are out of control. /

You really are nuts.

CWforFreedom on December 13, 2010 at 7:02 PM

I could cut it!

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:14 PM

Perfect!

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 7:05 PM

Yes. So would you.

DarkCurrent on December 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Flattery works well on me.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 7:07 PM

Damn right. It’s there. Get over it, leave it alone, and get out of our way.

Breyer and the other dissenters are a disgrace to the constitutional law we have. We were one vote from losing a CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. This should scare the PEE out of most of us.

tx2654 on December 13, 2010 at 7:19 PM

This should scare the PEE out of most of us.

tx2654 on December 13, 2010 at 7:19 PM

It should scare the PEE out of all of us with half a brain.

ladyingray on December 13, 2010 at 7:23 PM

Yeah, those damn Mormons who hit us on 9/11.

You’re a ****ing lunatic, D-S.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

I can even understand some people being as scared of Scientologists as they are Muslims. They did break into government buildings and go to prison for it, and in recent years have stalked and terrorized critics or buried them under legal hassles and smear campaigns.

But Mormons? Give me a break.

MadisonConservative on December 13, 2010 at 7:30 PM

Good Solid F-Minus on December 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM

CWforFreedom on December 13, 2010 at 7:02 PM

Not surprisingly, the point was utterly beyond the reach of you two. That being the threat from both groups is greatly exaggerated.

I’m more actually a bit more afraid of a nutty religious cult that lives here and might actually be able to take over portions of our government, than a bunch of overdressed brown chimpanzees living in godforsaken deserts halfway round the world who have just now managed to hit back.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 8:03 PM

Though conceptually, the environment of “Textualism” accommodates a limited defintion — a highly specific “noun” approach to what “arms” means — it’s a diminished or avoidance tactic to avoid the overall concept of what the term itself (“arms”) means, as per the 2nd Amendment.
It MEANS “arms” as in, “to take up arms,” the right of citizens to “take up arms,” to arm themselves.

Lourdes on December 13, 2010 at 4:58 PM

The Founding Fathers penned nothing in the Constitution as a ‘concept’. The Founding Fathers were quite specific and narrow in order to keep the powers of the Union limited and focused. “Textualism” as you call it keeps it that way. The Constitution is not a license for a loose and ‘conceptualized’ government, but a blueprint for a specific-in-function, limited-in-scope, servile government.

And yes, the word “Arms” in the Second Amendment is a noun, a highly specific noun, one the Founding Fathers chose to capitalize, one that just so happens to be PLURAL and as such does not lend itself to use as a verb as your “interpretation” – read as misconstrual – implies. The Founding Fathers never capitalized verbs in the Constitution.

If the Founding Fathers wished it to be for us to “take up arms” as in what “take up arms” truly means, it would be for us to go to war any time we pleased, and government couldn’t stop us. What a hell of a mess this land would be if your “interpretation” was fact. There might be three or four people still standing.

Complaint:
“You shot an unarmed man!”

(adjective)

Retort:
“Well, he should have armed himself.”

(verb)

The rest of what you wrote is fallacious and ludicrous.

That means, “textualism” fails as to understanding (and representing) what the 2nd Amendment means (as also the rest of the Constitution).

The specific definitions of certain words change per the usage of such (why colloquialisms change) but the important concept of the 2nd is in the “right” itself, the action involved, the ability to act in the 2nd’s specific right defined: to keep and bear arms.

Which should, to wise and informed people, quickly be understood and recognized as our right to individual, armed defense, to function, then, individually and collectively toward that self defense using “arms” to do so (we have that “right” to do so, it’s also a requirement in that context of militia, I believe, too).

Lourdes on December 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM

Ha Ha! “Wise and informed people”. Interesting. Especially since the Constitution was written in plain English. The Founding Fathers penned the Constitution in plain English so that anyone would be able to read and understand it, and so that anyone could read and obey it. That’s what the Court figured out in Marbury v. Madison – that they, too, had to read and obey the Constitution.

I hope you are not a teacher of the Constitution anywhere.

Woody

woodcdi on December 13, 2010 at 8:23 PM

It’s great that you can admit to such irrational fears.

blink on December 13, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Actually, that would be the people who are seeing jihadis under every rock.

Go down to Wal-Mart and buy a clue.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 8:27 PM

One time, I offered a Mormon friend a Cherry Coca-Cola and she declined in favor of a Sprite.

Talk about creepy people (they even obey their thirst).

Jeddite on December 13, 2010 at 8:30 PM

crr6 on December 13, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Proud Rino on December 13, 2010 at 12:06 PM

Nonsense.

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

mnealtx on December 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM

But Mormons? Give me a break.

MadisonConservative on December 13, 2010 at 7:30 PM

We are so sinister you know.
I mean,it’s obvious by the way we hoard groceries that we are hell bent on world domination.

Talk about creepy people (they even obey their thirst).

Jeddite on December 13, 2010 at 8:30 PM

Whatever. Those creepy people you’re talking about are some of the truest, kindest people I have ever met.
They have a wonderful welfare program to help anybody (not just LDS members), they help everybody with genealogy for free, & they are extremely charitable ()i.e. missions).

Badger40 on December 13, 2010 at 8:41 PM

Go down to Wal-Mart and buy a clue.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 8:27 PM

Is this where all of us Mormons hang out?
I’d really like to know.

Badger40 on December 13, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Look out, DS. We’re everywhere and like the Jooooos, we’re taking over the world–one jello salad at a time. Bwaahahahaha!

drflykilla on December 13, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Breyer is a liar.

profitsbeard on December 13, 2010 at 9:05 PM

Whatever. Those creepy people you’re talking about are some of the truest, kindest people I have ever met.
They have a wonderful welfare program to help anybody (not just LDS members), they help everybody with genealogy for free, & they are extremely charitable ()i.e. missions).

Thinking you’re taking that remark about seven or eight trifles too seriously.

Jeddite on December 13, 2010 at 9:21 PM

And this assklown considers himself a constitutional scholar? I swear, he had to have received his law school diploma from a mail order outfit….perhaps it was the Close Cover Before Striking School Of Law.

Speaking of matches, instead of actually reading The Federalist Papers, I think this stupid twit used them as rolling papers for all the marijuana with which he befuddled his brain.

CatchAll on December 13, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Is this where all of us Mormons hang out?
I’d really like to know.

Badger40 on December 13, 2010 at 8:42 PM

Do stop pretending to be a fool; you’ve been around long enough for us to know better.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Look out, DS. We’re everywhere and like the Jooooos, we’re taking over the world–one jello salad at a time. Bwaahahahaha!

drflykilla on December 13, 2010 at 9:02 PM

Take a one-way trip to Kolob, kook.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Breyer is, like many other liberal judges, an elitist who thinks that he and a select group of individuals know what is best. He is a smart man as all the judges are, but he cares about what Madison thought, because Madison was his prototypical elitist who pandered to the masses.

Iceman on December 13, 2010 at 9:58 PM

Thinking you’re taking that remark about seven or eight trifles too seriously.

Jeddite on December 13, 2010 at 9:21 PM

After the Let’s Pile on the Mormons rant from the religious nut bag trolls, I’m ready to believe anybody’s sarc tonight.

Do stop pretending to be a fool; you’ve been around long enough for us to know better.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Ha ha! Come on! I never see any Mormons in the Wal Mart in Dix or Biz up here in ND.
So if you can give me the heads up on where my peeps are hangin’ out, it’d be a big help.
Just sayin’.

Badger40 on December 13, 2010 at 10:24 PM

we’re taking over the world–one jello salad at a time. Bwaahahahaha!

drflykilla on December 13, 2010 at 9:02 PM

And here I thought that Lutherans & Catholics had a patent on the jello salad.

Badger40 on December 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM

Breyer is a dumb ass! The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The so-called Bill of Rights was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791. The Constitution was in operation for 3 years before the Second Amendment was added so how could the Amendment be passed to secure ratification of the Constitution?

Skylolo on December 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM

What’s that spinning sound coming from Madison’s tomb ?

Hey Breyer ! Shove it, your highness.

viking01 on December 13, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Breyer is just flat wrong across the board. He is engaging in wishful thinking and false history in order to rationalize unprincipled decision-making concerning the Second Amendment. This kind of stuff should get flunked out of law school instead of being a law professor at Harvard Law before a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Breyer may be a civil person, but he is not a good judge.

Phil Byler on December 13, 2010 at 11:54 PM

This guy is too dumb or too dishonest to be on SCOTUS. It’s called the 2nd Amendment for a reason, Breyer.

Heywood U. Reedmore on December 14, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Thank you for highlighting a fact, Demoncrates believe only they have the ability to read your mind by what you do not say better than if you actually said, “anything.”

MSGTAS on December 14, 2010 at 7:42 AM

You never tried. You denied ever having done such a thing right before supposedly apologizing for it after months and months of coming into these threads and bringing up conversations from over two years ago even when I refrained from even talking to you lest it be seen as somehow insulting you.

Esthier on December 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM

you’re a liar. your friend madisonfascist brought that up…trying to embarrass me…when it really embarrassed you two far more.

in the last 2 threads I didn’t start talking to you…I didn’t even respond to you in the last thread..get a clue.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:05 AM

Do stop pretending to be a fool; you’ve been around long enough for us to know better.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 9:45 PM

pretending? ROFL…you sure would know fools….

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:06 AM

Actually, that would be the people who are seeing jihadis under every rock.

Go down to Wal-Mart and buy a clue.

Dark-Star on December 13, 2010 at 8:27 PM

uh yeah you have nothing to worry about as long as you don’t live in NY…someplace safe like Portland…or better yet a military base, which are REAL SAFE….like Fort hood.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:09 AM

James Madison only included the right to bear arms reluctantly, and only because the states wouldn’t sign the Constitution for fear of creating an overmighty central government.

To put it in language a student would understand. Dude, the whole constitution was written to restrict the power of the almighty central government. It’s your job to enforce that. Now get back to work!

Georgfelis on December 14, 2010 at 8:26 AM

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:09 AM

BOO!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 8:27 AM

BOO!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 8:27 AM

duhhhhh

hey gomer, nows your chance to answer a question you darwiniacs never seem to answer…

please list the LOWER RACES darwin was referring to:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64)

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Whatever you say sockpuppet!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM

Whatever you say sockpuppet!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM

don’t you find it amusing that a sock-puppet can make you look so stupid so easily? not that its very hard mind you…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:19 AM

Breyer thus demonstrates his snobbishness and lack of respect for those who drafted the Constitution. Personally, I consider that ‘bad behavior’ and grounds for removal, since his oath requires him to defend the Constitution. It’ll never happen, but I fear for the nation should this trend continue.

No more law professors on the Supreme Court.

flataffect on December 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM

don’t you find it amusing that a sock-puppet can make you look so stupid so easily? not that its very hard mind you…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:19 AM

List three things you investigate when you run your PAGE after pcr.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:35 AM

List three things you investigate when you run your PAGE after pcr and don’t observe the banding pattern you expected.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Good grief dude!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM

List three things you investigate when you run your PAGE after pcr.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:35 AM

sure soon as you list the lower races your savior darwin was referring to.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM

sure soon as you list the lower races your savior darwin was referring to.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I’m a christian. Why are you so quick to judge?

Darwin wrote an interesting book to be sure…

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM

I’m a christian. Why are you so quick to judge?

Darwin wrote an interesting book to be sure…

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM

oh right of course you are….just like dakine…please.

oh yeah very interesting…..

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

so which were the ‘favoured races’?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM

so which were the ‘favoured races’?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM

You tell me. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I’ve never read any of his works. I understand the tenets and outworkings of his worldview though, as I am a scientist that has worked in academia, production, and discovery.. Scary stuff, evil stuff.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Which polymerase would I chose to achieve high-fidelity in my amplicons?

I would allow you to copy-paste your answer from a google search.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM

You tell me. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I’ve never read any of his works. I understand the tenets and outworkings of his worldview though, as I am a scientist that has worked in academia, production, and discovery.. Scary stuff, evil stuff.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

its rather obvious isn’t it? how hard is this? so you really have no idea what you defend so huh?

tell me if you think coyne is wrong…..

To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7106/full/442983a.html

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Which polymerase would I chose to achieve high-fidelity in my amplicons?

I would allow you to copy-paste your answer from a google search.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:54 AM

who cares? what database do I develop applications with?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM

LMFAO, why even quote me if your response is a non-sequitor copy-paste?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

You tell me. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I’ve never read any of his works. I understand the tenets and outworkings of his worldview though, as I am a scientist that has worked in academia, production, and discovery.. Scary stuff, evil stuff.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

so you have no clue about eugenics, which derive from evolution…and its ultimate expression in the gas chambers of nazi germany….or the whole sordid racist history of the progressive movement….amazing.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

LMFAO, why even quote me if your response is a non-sequitor copy-paste?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

I have no doubt about the fat part…having trouble with simple english huh mr. ‘scientist’?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM

LMFAO, why even quote me if your response is a non-sequitor copy-paste?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:58 AM

oh I forgot who I’m posting to….I’ll try to post more s l o w l y so you’ll understand….

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:01 AM

Well, this has again been most instructive.

God Bless.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM

Well, this has again been most instructive.

God Bless.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:02 AM

I always get a laugh when atheist wackos quote the bible…

thanks for the laughs gomer…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM

No problem Balaam.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

No problem Balaam.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:04 AM

oh gee that was so witty coming from someone who believes in an atheist theory that totally denies God.

look up irony gomer…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:06 AM

This is my homepage.

I am no atheist and I do not deny God.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:09 AM

This is my homepage.

I am no atheist and I do not deny God.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:09 AM

uh huh….so how can a good ‘christian’ like you defend, support, and believe a racist atheist theory like evolution?

cognitive dissonance?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:10 AM

I have never once defended, supported, or believed in evolution or its attendant worldview, you foisted that on me.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I have never once defended, supported, or believed in evolution or its attendant worldview, you foisted that on me.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

oh yes crucifying you…you’re just a victim…right….so in other words you lied in that last thread.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:14 AM

so which were the ‘favoured races’?

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 AM

You tell me. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I’ve never read any of his works. I understand the tenets and outworkings of his worldview though, as I am a scientist that has worked in academia, production, and discovery.. Scary stuff, evil stuff.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:50 AM

so you say you understand darwin’s world view….but you don’t have a clue as to what I am talking about…hmmmmmm

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I have never once defended, supported, or believed in evolution or its attendant worldview, you foisted that on me.

Imagine my incredulity with regard to you CRUCIFYING me as such.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:13 AM

and in the last thread you sure sounded like a wacko atheist…using typical atheist talking…and now you’re mr. christian…. sorry ain’t buying it.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Charles Darwin wrote on many subjects. I can reject the logical outworking of his worldview without reading everything he wrote.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

and in the last thread you sure sounded like a wacko atheist…using typical atheist talking…and now you’re mr. christian…. sorry ain’t buying it.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I asked you a specific science question to assess your knowledge and understanding in an attempt to determine what level of understanding we could discourse at.

Just about every response to me since then has been mean spirited, dismissive, and unwarranted.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

Charles Darwin wrote on many subjects. I can reject the logical outworking of his worldview without reading everything he wrote.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 AM

you don’t have to read everything he wrote to know what a racist he was…or how racist the theory of evolution is…hell even evolutionists like gould recognize the ‘logical outworking of his worldview’

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I asked you a specific science question to assess your knowledge and understanding in an attempt to determine what level of understanding we could discourse at.

Just about every response to me since then has been mean spirited, dismissive, and unwarranted.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:24 AM

what BS. I didn’t give you the answer you wanted…then you came up with snarky atheist BS about me condemning you to hell…laughable.

oh mean spirited…like when you came into the this thread…and derisively dismissed a legitimate concern over jihadists? yeah you’re so deserving of rational conversation…..

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

like when you came into the this thread…and derisively dismissed a legitimate concern over jihadists?
right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:27 AM

WTH?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

WTH?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

lets try to keep up here…

BOO!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 8:27 AM

and then after my response, where I did not call you any names…you came up with this mean spirited dismissive and unwarrented statment….

Whatever you say sockpuppet!

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 9:13 AM

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM

WTH?

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM

this is getting boring….

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM

duhhhhh

hey gomer, nows your chance to answer a question you darwiniacs never seem to answer…

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 9:08 AM

I say BOO!!! and elicit that response from you.

1.Call me gomer,
2.say ‘duhh’ as if you are addressing an inferior intellect
3.call me a darwiniac.

super-duper!

You clearly are a sockpuppet. No one I know discourses in such an infantile way as you.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM

this is getting boring….

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 10:34 AM

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

copy-paste

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Well, thanks for playing Mr. Alinsky.

I just got woke up after resting from a 84 hour work week. The coffee is kicking in…time to do something productive, like produce a stool, as opposed to conversating with you.

Hope you have a great day.

Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:40 AM

you’re a liar. your friend madisonfascist brought that up…trying to embarrass me…when it really embarrassed you two far more.

Madison never brought up the comments you put into at least five different threads. That was all you, and you did it once even when I hadn’t written a word to you all because Madison did something to upset you.

I’ve never lied to you, but you do see liars everywhere, just like you’re suddenly deciding Inanemergencydial is a darwinist just because you can’t remember who you were talking to before who actually is one. Doesn’t matter how many times you’re told the truth, you keep insisting that you’re right.

in the last 2 threads I didn’t start talking to you…I didn’t even respond to you in the last thread..get a clue.

right4life on December 14, 2010 at 8:05 AM

So you were kind of enough to ignore me for two threads. That doesn’t undo all the other threads. I didn’t post your most hateful posts this year. Even with your convenient amnesia, I’m still not doing it, because I don’t intend to embarrass you. I’d rather you just own up to what you’ve done and turn over a new leaf.

Not everyone is fat, ugly, stupid or a rabid atheist with a final solution for you. We can have disagreements without resorting to these kinds of comments. Why not just agree to do that and to actually listen to what others are trying to say instead of assuming they have some sort of secret agenda?

Esthier on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7 8