2nd Amendment Question

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Actually Woody, the operative word is "arising."

Actually, "arising" means to come into being in this context. "Under" is still operative here, delineating a limit upon the power of the Court. The only thing that would rise above the Constitution's grant of power to the Court is the Constitution itself and the various protections it affords our rights.

Amazingly, I am in total agreement with ConstituionCowboy.

We the People outlined the power of the Court.
We the People have endorsed the actions of the Court.
We the People have accepted the Court's interpretations.

Of course, "We" is plural and represents at least a majority of the People, although individual People may hold differing opinions.

Well, one third maybe. Very few of us have endorsed the actions of the Court, and very few of us accept the Court's "interpretations". I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of us are clueless in these regards.

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

... And we should hope that they will be skillful and knowledgeable lawyers who understand and can work the system to represent our side and gain us the most favorable decisions reasonably possible in real life. ...

Do you honestly believe the Court awaits whatever the lawyers present in such cases to form their opinions? Read DC v. Heller. The Court states its position and where and how it concurs or disagrees with the various briefs. The "dissenting" Justices lost only because they are in a minority, and the concurring Justices won because they were in a majority. This was all decided based upon the opinions of the Justices.

Woody

 

[Phil Lee]

I hate it when people make claims like "

You, Phil, and you, Woody, and some others here, will object, and claim the courts' decisions to be Constitutional violations or usurpation of power they don't have."

It is arrogant to presume to know what I'll do. But, I don't think fiddletown has made the claim because he is arrogant -- I think he wants to change the topic of discussion.

I'm not willing to leave the 14th Amendment, yet. The case pled by Senator Conkling and decided by Judge Waite is a prime example of judicial misconduct and wrong decision. Even if Judge Waite had accepted Conkling's claim for a hidden intent by the drafters of the amendment concerning the meaning of person, he should have rejected the claim on the basis that it intentionally deceived the parties ratifying the amendment.

The common use in legal context for PERSON was:

'This word is applied to men, women, and children. It is also used to denote a corporation, which is an artificial person. . . . But when the word "person" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural person will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial person.'

(ref: A Law Dictionary, John Bouvier, 2nd Edition, Vol. 1, 1856, p 318)

According to this common legal use, person, in the 14th Amendment would have been understood by ratifiers as natural persons. Corrupt people then lied to have the accepted meaning by ratifiers converted to a wider meaning to include corporations.

This story should be understood by all, because it has current implications. If your great-grandfather had stolen money, stuffed it into the walls of your family house, died soon after, and that money was discovered by you 100 years later, the money wouldn't be your money. It was stolen from people and belongs to those people or their heirs. We all understand that. But, if the law was stolen by a corrupt act, we are told by workers in the legal field to accept this theft. "Stare decisis" must be respected.

The 14th Amendment's meaning for "persons" was stolen years ago. That wasn't the most important theft, there were other thefts for this Amendment -- particularly concerning the application of the Bill of Rights to the States.

What the people have been facing to an increasing degree since Miller has been the attempt to steal the meaning of the 2nd Amendment of their Constitution. For the moment, perhaps, the people have held the line. But the plan to steal it by reasonable regulation is still being worked.

Some people have the misguided idea that the Constitution is there to protect them. To protect the people, the people must protect the Constitution. It can't be a shield for them, if it isn't a flag to rally them. The flag, in this instance, is the meaning of the Constitution. That is, the real meaning, not what some judge says is the meaning.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Do you honestly believe the Court awaits whatever the lawyers present in such cases to form their opinions? Read DC v. Heller. The Court states its position and where and how it concurs or disagrees with the various briefs. The "dissenting" Justices lost only because they are in a minority, and the concurring Justices won because they were in a majority. This was all decided based upon the opinions of the Justices....

I know from experience that judges' views can be, and are, shaped by the way a case is presented by one side or the other, the arguments that are made and the facts of the case. Most judges really do try to decide cases based on the applicable law and on the particular facts of the case, and most judges conscientiously consider well made arguments by counsel for the parties.

I know that you have no experience of this and will never believe it. But it is true.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'm talking the Justices on the Supreme Court, not your run-of-the-mill judges.

I didn't read every brief presented in the DC v. Heller case, but I don't recall any of the ones I did read mentioning the use of Johnson's Dictionary; 1773(+/-).

Woody

 

[Frank Ettin]

They don't rely 100% on the briefs in writing their opinions. They also do their own research, and have clerks to do research. Often they will follow a line of argument suggested by a brief or argument.

 

[gc70]

I didn't read every brief presented in the DC v. Heller case, but I don't recall any of the ones I did read mentioning the use of Johnson's Dictionary; 1773(+/-).

The 1st edition (1755) was cited by the Professors of Linguistics.

The 4th edition (1773) was cited by Texas and 30 States. The brief erroneously cited the publication date as 1770, although the actual date was 1773.

Scalia properly used the 1773 edition, as it was written closer, but still prior, to the formulation of the Second Amendment.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Thanks, gc. I'll read them and compare what they wrote to what Scalia wrote.

Woody

 

[gc70]

Very few of us have endorsed the actions of the Court, and very few of us accept the Court's "interpretations". I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of us are clueless in these regards.

Definitional differences aside, uninformed acquiesence has the same practical result as active agreement. The vast majority of the people validate the Court's actions by failing to act to invalidate its actions. As a practical matter, the Constitution does mean what the Court says it means.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Definitional differences aside, uninformed acquiesence has the same practical result as active agreement. The vast majority of the people validate the Court's actions by failing to act to invalidate its actions. As a practical matter, the Constitution does mean what the Court says it means.

How sad, but true in practice. It tells me that the Court, meant to be the watchdog, cannot be trusted. It can't be trusted to operate when no one is looking, or when whomever is looking is clueless.

The definition of good character is doing what's right when no one is looking. What a sad commentary on some of those "revered" citizens of this union of ours, occupying that bench, who won't live up to that simple axiom.

Woody

"Impeachment is the Right of the People, vested in the powers granted to Congress, to preserve or restore Justice and preserve the Constitution of the United States. Those vested with power shall neither deprive the People the means, nor compel such recourse." B.E.Wood

There's been a whole lot of compelling going on in the last hundred years or so...