24 hour countdown!
- Thread starter .cheese.
- Start date
- Status
RecoilRob
Member
I'm not staying home, but it WILL be difficult to work with both of my fingers crossed!
After the last decision giving detainees Constitutional Rights, I'm really worried about what kind of 'decision' will be handed down.
After the last decision giving detainees Constitutional Rights, I'm really worried about what kind of 'decision' will be handed down.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Well, if they are so intent on making sure everyone gets rights guaranteed in the Constitution then Heller should be a shoe in.
If terrorists in Gitmo are entitled to the Bill of Rights then surely the defenseless in DC are entitled to the same.
(I'm trying to keep a positive outlook lol)
JustinL
Member
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.....
Given the court's recent track record one cannot be too careful.
Given the court's recent track record one cannot be too careful.
rdoggsilva
Member
I am not going to hold my breath. The way they have been going, it is a soap opera, are a comedy.
ArcherandShooter
Member
After they upheld McCain-Feingold, after Kelo v. New London, and after giving the Gitmo detainees full civil rights, I will believe we get a favorable ruling out of this court when I read it for myself.
uneasy_rider
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 285
We also have two new Bush appointees on the court... Given the Bush track record for making the right choices, I would say anything could happen, and most is not good.
Solo Flyer
member
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 581
I'd like to stay home but unfortunately can't.It's going to be announced tomorrow that's almost a given.
Who will be the lucky THR member to announce it to the world?
That will be the most active one day thread in the forum's history,IMO.
Who will be the lucky THR member to announce it to the world?
That will be the most active one day thread in the forum's history,IMO.
matt87
Member
I don't get what seems to be widespread annoyance of Gitmo. From what I understand, the decision meant that torture is illegal to Guantanamo Bay inmates. Says a lot for your belief in inalienable rights; cruel and unusual punishment, coercion to self-incrimination, due process of law... it applies to EVERYONE, irrespective of their nation of birth. That's what an inalienable right is. Same applies for the RKBA.
Right on Matt87.
These inalienable rights were given to humans from God and as such apply to all of us regardless of where we were born or any other distinction. These rights were not given to us from the government, only recognized as pre-existing rights. Hence, it doesn't matter which way Heller goes, we still have the right to self defense by ordinary means.
These inalienable rights were given to humans from God and as such apply to all of us regardless of where we were born or any other distinction. These rights were not given to us from the government, only recognized as pre-existing rights. Hence, it doesn't matter which way Heller goes, we still have the right to self defense by ordinary means.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Thread drift incoming
That is true, these ARE inalienable rights but the right of the United States to protect itself from criminals or enemies during wartime has been upheld as well. Whether that right is "God given" is up for argument as regards a country but it's clear that many of these inalienable rights can be suspended for some purpose or another, else we would have no prisons or executions. You can't deprive someone of their freedom right? Let's open all the jails then, see how that works.
The argument was never about whether the Gitmo detainees had inalienable rights, it was whether or not the government could suspend those rights in certain circumstances.
dogrunner
Member
In all the comments RE: Heller what I haven't seen is the simple observation that it really doesn't make a tinkers dam (dam...not damn) what the SC has to say. The simple clear truth is that anyone that can read English can understand both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lawyerly discourse tends only to obfiscuscate it and likely is best ignored.
To that end, at least on my behalf, I don't really care what decision the SC renders. The 2nd is my right as an American citizen whose roots go back to before this was the United States and I will abide by the Constitution as it was written and intended..........
Y'all do as you will! I most certainly intend to.
To that end, at least on my behalf, I don't really care what decision the SC renders. The 2nd is my right as an American citizen whose roots go back to before this was the United States and I will abide by the Constitution as it was written and intended..........
Y'all do as you will! I most certainly intend to.
Cacique500
Member
Gonna be interesting...
22LongRifle
Member
We should care what the SC renders. The Founding Fathers allows the SC to INTERPT the Constitution, by the checks and balances. The House and Senate migh make the laws, but its the SC that interpts them. And once they are inteprted a certain way, only the SC can reinterpts them.
22lr
22lr
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
GD wrote:
TexasRifleman wrote:
Nobody has the right to torture anyone, for any reason. Torture is not mere "cruelty," or "a certain amount" of pain (which is in itself subjective). Torture is an objective act: the coercion of the free will. Our free will was given to each individual by God. Our lives were, as well. We can forefeit our lives by committing murder. But it is ontologically impossibly for someone to forefeit his own free will, even through his own free will. Torture is an insult, a slap in the face to our Creator, in whose image and likeness every individual was created. Coercing someone's free will is something that God himself refuses to do, yet the individuals in the U.S. government seem to think they're better and wiser than God.
TexasRifleman wrote:
The very definition of "inalienable" is "not capable of being suspended."
-Sans Authoritas
TexasRifleman wrote:
Nobody has the right to torture anyone, for any reason. Torture is not mere "cruelty," or "a certain amount" of pain (which is in itself subjective). Torture is an objective act: the coercion of the free will. Our free will was given to each individual by God. Our lives were, as well. We can forefeit our lives by committing murder. But it is ontologically impossibly for someone to forefeit his own free will, even through his own free will. Torture is an insult, a slap in the face to our Creator, in whose image and likeness every individual was created. Coercing someone's free will is something that God himself refuses to do, yet the individuals in the U.S. government seem to think they're better and wiser than God.
TexasRifleman wrote:
The very definition of "inalienable" is "not capable of being suspended."
-Sans Authoritas
Hk91-762mm
Member
I think the SCOTUS will say the 2A is a citizens right --!
They will also rule-the Federal Gov.and state Govs have the right to restrict the Right to arms -Just as they are allowed to restrict free speech as In yelling fire In a public place to Cause Chaos.
Putting is right back to square one !
They will also rule-the Federal Gov.and state Govs have the right to restrict the Right to arms -Just as they are allowed to restrict free speech as In yelling fire In a public place to Cause Chaos.
Putting is right back to square one !
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Naked chicks dancing on a table in front of me, coaxing $20 bills from my wallet is "coercion" but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to find a jury that will consider it torture.......
I don't WANT to buy a table dance, I HAVE to.
It's all subjective, which is what we're talking about here.
gbran
Member
I purposely didn't schedule any field work for tomorrow. I'll stay in my office and catch up on paperwork............... and watch this thing like a hawk.
Grandpa Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2007
- Messages
- 948
I agree with you Dogrunner
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Sans Authoritas wrote:
Right. The government came to your house with a gun, drugged you, dragged you to Camp X-Rated and and forced you to be subjected all those things. And then they told you that if you tried to get up and leave, as you morally should, they would kill or cripple you.
Texas, the attempt to coerce someone's will is not subjective. Don't laugh off the animalistic behaviors undertaken by the U.S. government, the same government that sentenced to death those who performed the same actions during WWII. Step back into reality.
-Sans Authoritas
Right. The government came to your house with a gun, drugged you, dragged you to Camp X-Rated and and forced you to be subjected all those things. And then they told you that if you tried to get up and leave, as you morally should, they would kill or cripple you.
Texas, the attempt to coerce someone's will is not subjective. Don't laugh off the animalistic behaviors undertaken by the U.S. government, the same government that sentenced to death those who performed the same actions during WWII. Step back into reality.
-Sans Authoritas
george29
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,670
I think you're trying to inject humor Tex, but I can tell you that I have witnessed countries that pretend to be democratic and civilized and they are the most dangerous. IMO, we are on that slippery slope right now and if it happens, there is no one left in the world to help us back on our feet. Most of the world is anxiously awaiting for the USA to officially become socialistic, and the prelimenary stage is to hide that fact whilst defacto doing as socialists do!
The only two books that mean anything to me is the Bible (and I'm not religious) and the Constitution. Neither allow for indefinitely restricting a persons freedom w/o due process.
JC, had to endure a Sanhedrin that was disloyal to its own rules, need I say more?
- Status
