Arms Then and Arms Now

[gc70]

That doesn't mean the founders envisioned the armed citizen to have personal cannons.

Personal ownership of cannons was not something for the Founders to envision, but a reality that was recognized in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11). Letters of Marque were totally dependent on the existence of privately-owned warships.

And even if it did, it doesn't mean "arms" can or should be interpreted to mean every weapon of offense around today.

This is the crux of the issue. The Founders set no clear limits (and possibly envisioned none) and that is awkward in today's world. However, we must rationally bridge the gap between the Founders' reality and our reality, because the opponents of the RKBA will not blindly overlook that inconsistency.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Cos,

It would be impossible for anyone to interpret the constitution the way you say I do because I don't interpret it. I simply read and obey. Anyone can read and obey it, though.

I do believe its legitimate to this discussion - that the word "arms" covers all manner of weapons - for you to present evidence to back up your claim that the text of the Constitution, the Second Amendment specifically, has a limit in it as to what arms may be kept and borne by the people in an uninfringed manner. I do believe it would be legitimate to this discussion for you to present evidence where, in the Constitution, Congress has been granted power to infringe upon the right beyond what you believe is the scope of the Second Amendment's protections. If you are going to fall back on your "Interpretation" mantra, please point out in the Constitution where Congress or the Court has been given power to interpret the Constitution.

You've failed to look at the past 200 years of jurisprudence interpreting the BOR. I don't know if you just refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court as authority in this matter or what.

As I have stated, I do not acknowledge any authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution. That power has not been granted to the Court, nor anyone else in the employ of the United States in any official capacity. Even in US v. Miller. the Court didn't try to place any definition of arms beyond its archaic, and still current, scope.

That's because those sources came before the BOR. They may be useful tools in interpreting the provisions, but it would have been impossible for them to engage in any legal interpretation of the BOR because the draft didn't exist until 1789.

Have you any idea how ludicrous that sounds? You are implying the Founding Fathers had no idea what they were writing and just threw some words at a piece of paper or wrote in pidgin so that people in the future(like the next day?) would have to unscramble them and hopefully understand what those Founding Fathers actually meant for those words to say. I do believe the Founding Fathers fully understood what they wrote and it can de discerned today, even with a current dictionary because very little has actually changed with the language the Constitution and Amendments have been written in.

The "original meaning" can never be known.

Speak for yourself.

And even if we did fully understand what all the drafters intended, so what? It's a fair bet none of them intended speech to mean television ads or arms to mean maxim machine guns.

Here you go again, embracing the device and not the right or freedom. The device is covered as a consequence of its invention in the field or scope of the right or freedom protected, AS protected. What is a machine gun but a faster way to throw rocks than a slingshot, or to spread your effectiveness out further than a blunderbuss! What is television but a faster way to communicate and with more people than runners, homing pigeons, semaphore, or smoke signals! Your way, the protection of keeping and bearing lever action rifles and revolvers would never be protected, nor would talking on the phone be protected.

In this case, we have a dictionary that says "arms" means "Weapons of offence, or armour of defence." Where does that get us? Arms means weapons. That doesn't mean the founders envisioned the armed citizen to have personal cannons. And even if it did, it doesn't mean "arms" can or should be interpreted to mean every weapon of offense around today. The context pretty clearly involves individuals. It is, after all, an INDIVIDUAL right. So it makes sense to at least interpret arms in the second to mean individual arms that a man might take up on short notice.

This is more of pretending the right bears more upon the device than the right.

legaleagle 45,

Are you not still confusing "Common Law" with statutory? Incidentally, the first mention of common law in the Constitution was by the Seventh Amendment, not the Sixth. But it is still pertinent to point out that the common law mentioned in the Seventh Amendment is only applicable to cases where there is a monetary value that exceeds $20.00, the right to a trial by jury shall be preserved. This is also the only place in the Constitution where I find any hint of the efficacy of following precedent.

I understand what judicial power is. In this country, it extends to all cases in law and equity, "...ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND TREATIES MADE, ETC..." The Court operates with such exceptions, and under such regulations as Congress shall make, and not English common law. Congress can compel the Court to follow the Constitution, and impeach any justices that will not comply. That is the balance of power held over the Court by Congress. That would include instructing the Court in the legislative intent of any acts of Congress. The Court does get to interpret law and to determine the constitutionality of it(on appeal), and that is part of the balance of power the Court has over Congress.

But as to the purpose of this thread, no, it isn't about using arms to throw off the yolk of tyranny. It's about what the word "arms" means and its scope. I understand the importance of arms to mankind. Because we were not created with fangs, claws, wings, beaks, stink, quills, or blood-curdling screeches, we must use the one tool we do have to survive - our intelligence. We've had to come up with our own tools to survive. Thus, we have the right - and the necessity - to keep and bear arms.

As gc70 wrote, the Founding Fathers set no clear limits. I'd go to the profound truth of the matter and say our founding Fathers clearly set NO limits. I wouldn't even call the "gap" between the Founding Father's reality and our present day reality an inconsistency. Why? Because the Founding Fathers realized that times do change and included a process to remedy any such "inconsistency" with the ability to amend the Constitution in Article V. That is where the battle should rage, not the vile attempts to "interpret" the Second Amendment, or to alter the definition of words - even to alter what the words in the Constitution meant back when it was written!

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

 

[legaleagle_45]

Woodci wrote:

Are you not still confusing "Common Law" with statutory?

Common law is the state of the law as determined by the courts. It can be "judge made law" or the courts interpretations of statutes. Said pronouncements of what the law was were and are binding until superceeded by a statute or by a higher court decision. The american system is unique in that judge made decisions concerning issue of the constitution can not be superceeded by a statute, but only by constitutional amendment or a change in a future judicial decision... but other than that special class, all other aspects of common law are subject to statutory revision... BUT to the extent they are not superceeded, the common law remains in force.

I will try to give you an example of where my thoughts are in this. At common law, burglary was defined as:

"The breaking and entering into the dwelling house of another at night time with the intent to commit a felony therein."

Common law rules went on to define a dwelling house to include all attached structures to the house, thus an attached garage would be considered part of the dwelling, but not the storage shed on the back 40. Breaking was defined as any slight physical force. Thus, if you need to make the entrance wider by swinging out an already partially open door, this was breaking. If the door was wide open and you merely walked in, this was not "breaking". Similar rules developed concerning "night time", "entering" and the like.

Modern statutes have significantly altered the scope of burglary. A statute may define burglary as "The breaking and entering into any building with the intent to commit any crime" and thereby dispense with the dwelling house rule, the night time rule and the felony rule. This is fine and dandy and perfectly legit... but the fact remains that the common law rules which were not eliminated by statute, such as what constituties a breaking and what constitutes an entering, will be applied by the court when it is confronted with those questions under the new statute. The court will not look at a contemporary dictionary in order to create its own new rule on what is a breaking, they are required to apply prexisting judicial precedent... which is exactly what the common law is and was.

 

[glummer]

HD

I don't know when we fell into the mindset that it was acceptable for government to do anything it wasn't forbidden from doing.

My suspicion is that it began about the time we accepted the idea of government-run schools. If the very 1st thing you personally learn about the government is that it has the right to take you away from your parents, and you are taught that that is a good thing, then you can easily accept anything else.

Wood

here is not any arm I can think of that I cannot take the controls of in my hands(takes in his hands) and use in anger,

I would suggest that that is the root of the WMD issue – the mere UNREGULATED possession of a WMD would, I think, constitute brandishing, and assault with the threat of great bodily harm; meaning that, without some reassuring regulation, from some source, the possessor would be a walking dead man. As a practical matter, any WMDs will be regulated in some fashion, analogous to the way they are now.

Eagle

While the first portion of the 2nd Amendment is declaratory in nature and does not restrict the individual right, neither can it be ignored as guidance to the intent.

I believe it was an established principle of law at the time that such ‘declaratories’ in fact, not only could, but SHOULD be ignored, if the main clause was susceptible of a clear meaning by itself. Only if the operative clause, by itself, was ambiguous (as the 2A is not), would the other clauses be resorted to for clarification.

most of the framers who had seen the results of the French Revolution.

The BOR was completed in 1789, the 1st year (of 10) of the French Revolution began.

 

[Cosmoline]

Letters of Marque were totally dependent on the existence of privately-owned warships

A privately owned warship without letters of marque is a:

But we need to be careful about using nautical analogies since we're literally and figuratively in very different waters. The law of the sea has always been different from the law of the land.

It would be impossible for anyone to interpret the constitution the way you say I do because I don't interpret it. I simply read and obey. Anyone can read and obey it, though.

Nonsense. Believing as you appear to that "arms" should be read as broadly as it can be in the Second *IS* an interpretation. It's a nutty one, but it's still an interpretation. You still seem to view the Constitution as a fundamentalist would view a Biblical tract. But the Constitution is not a religious document. It's a working set of legal concepts and as such it MUST be interpreted if it is to have any significance. I'm not sure why this is such a difficult concept. You're doing it yourself when you try to figure out what particular words mean. This entire thread is an exercise in interpretation.

As I have stated, I do not acknowledge any authority of the Court to interpret the Constitution.

How are cases to be decided then? If no court can decide what "religion" or "speech" or "arms" means, how these terms are to function and then apply the whole thing to a certain fact pattern, the Constitution becomes a piece of historical art, nothing more.

You are implying the Founding Fathers had no idea what they were writing and just threw some words at a piece of paper or wrote in pidgin so that people in the future(like the next day?) would have to unscramble them and hopefully understand what those Founding Fathers actually meant for those words to say. I do believe the Founding Fathers fully understood what they wrote and it can de discerned today, even with a current dictionary because very little has actually changed with the language the Constitution and Amendments have been written in.

What was or was not said during the convention regarding the Second is an unknown. It's a black box. The founders knew, however, that the system would be there to interpet what was written. This is why the Constitution is only a few pages instead of longer than the IRC. If they had taken your position, every term would have to be defined at length and every possible permutation explored. This isn't how the legal system worked then, and it isn't how the legal system works now.

please point out in the Constitution where Congress or the Court has been given power to interpret the Constitution.

You need to read up on the history of this great Republic, me boyo. This was a major issue in the early years. Many in Congress felt that body should have the final say in how to interet the Constitution. After the dust settled and Marbury v. Madison was handed down and the Judiciary Act of 1801 repealed and replaced, it was the judiciary that took up that role. And it's been that way ever since. This notions have become part of the living Constitution, whether you like it or not.

If you insist on sticking to an absolutist view of the Constitution, the federal judiciary would consist of a single person--the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And Congress and the Executive would be fighting endlessly about who could do what. Indeed under that interpretation the Republic would have fallen apart during the first major crisis.

Your way, the protection of keeping and bearing lever action rifles and revolvers would never be protected, nor would talking on the phone be protected.

No, that's YOUR way. That's what happens if you restrict the definition to what Johnson said and the Founders specifically had in mind. None of them knew about leverguns or machine guns. But that doesn't mean "arms" can't include those devices.

 

[legaleagle_45]

glummer wrote:

I believe it was an established principle of law at the time that such ‘declaratories’ in fact, not only could, but SHOULD be ignored, if the main clause was susceptible of a clear meaning by itself. Only if the operative clause, by itself, was ambiguous (as the 2A is not), would the other clauses be resorted to for clarification.

I totally agree with everthing you state except the portion which is in parenthesis. An example of a declaration occuring in the constitution is the preamble. The preamble is not a source of power for the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the scope, and purpose of the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316, 403 (1819) Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. (2 U.S.) 419, 471 (1793); Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. (14 U.S.) 304, 324 (1816). Justice Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES:

Its true office, is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, `to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?''

Our disagreement is whether the term arms is ambigous. I will point out that there are indeed different definitions for the term "arms". I have cited one from Coke. I will go on to state that Coke's definition is found in Black's Law Dictionary. I will also point out that Coke's definition can be found in American case law. State v. Bruzzard, 4 Ark. 18. I will also point out that said definition is implicit in the underlying precedent cited in the Miller case, Aymette, as well as in Miller itself. Finally, I will point to a pragmatic rationale. You have two competing definitions, one which supports an individual right to have atomic weapons, nerve gas, tanks and missles, the other does not. Which definition do you think a court is more likely to adopt? Or more important, which definition is SCOTUS likely to adopt?

 

[glummer]

Eagle

… whether the term arms is ambigous.

I believe it was also an established principle at the time that even in cases where there was a claim of ambiguity in the operative clause, the declaratory clause could not in any way RESTRICT or reduce the effect of the operative. Thus, all the ‘militia’ clause tells us is that AT THE LEAST, militia arms are covered. It sets a floor, but not a ceiling. And the ceiling is what we are concerned with here. And militia (National Guard) ‘arms’ today start with selective fire assault rifles and go on up to at least the level of fighter jets and tanks.
I don’t know if the Guard has tactical nukes, or not.

 

[Cosmoline]

And the ceiling is what we are concerned with here. And militia (National Guard) ‘arms’ today start with selective fire assault rifles and go on up to at least the level of fighter jets and tanks.

But now we're talking about the national guard again, which puts us right back in with the antis. If the Second is to have any practical meaning, it must be interpreted in a practical way. I disagree that arms is ambiguous. An ambiguous legal term is one with two or more conflicting reasonable interpretations. An interpretation of arms in the context of the Second to include nukes is not reasonable.

 

[glummer]

Cosmo

An interpretation of arms in the context of the Second to include nukes is not reasonable.

Your definition of 'reasonable' is unreasonable. Since the Authors had no conception of anything like WMD, it is entirely possible that they made the 2A open-ended as to weapon types, without knowing what it might lead to. Your argument is like that of the antis - if the plain meaning of the 2nd leads to something you find unacceptable, you try to twist the definiton to fit your wishes. Nukes are definitely 'arms'; whether they OUGHT to be covered by the 2A is a separate question from whether they ARE covered.

 

[charon]

Let's say the founders intended a fully inclusive, broad definition of arms even though common references to arms in military logistics documents etc. of the day seem to separate cannons out, and you have a lot of founder and state constitution references implying arms as personal weapons (drilling, "in hands" hunting, etc.). And, let's say the SCOUTS falls in line somehow.

So, you remove artillery from its restrictions as an explosive device. The possession of ordnance becomes commonplace. Eventually, some nutter decides to shell the local elementary school with his 105mm howitzer because his dog told him it was the right thing to do.

Even though you might be statistically less likely to get killed in a criminal artillery attack than get hit by lightning (as is the case today with a Cho type of firearm event) there will of course, be an immediate emotion-fueled call to amend the Constitution where the 2nd is concerned. Unlike now, that call would likely be supported by the majority of the population, including most mainstream firearm owners. Even today too many are focused on their hunting use and wouldn't know the 2nd if it bit them in the rear. What do you want to bet that once that ball is in motion the ability to limit "sensible" additions to the amendment will go out the door It might not even need a criminal misuse of such a weapon but just the clarification that the scary guy down the street could own one. So we no longer need to reference the intent, since we will have fresh modern law in the Constitution. Just some practical food for though.

 

[legaleagle_45]

glummer wrote:

I believe it was also an established principle at the time that even in cases where there was a claim of ambiguity in the operative clause, the declaratory clause could not in any way RESTRICT or reduce the effect of the operative.

Incorrect. The idea was to discern intent. Thus we have this from the Majority opinion in Parker:

As already discussed, the Miller court was examining the relationship between the weapon in question—a short-barreled shotgun—and the preservation of the militia system, which was the Amendment’s politically
relevant purpose. The term “Arms” was quite indefinite, but it
would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to
ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons
capable of mass destruction—e.g., cannons. (My emphasis) Thus the Miller Court limited the term “Arms”—interpreting it in a manner consistent with the Amendment’s underlying civic purpose.
Only “Arms” whose “use or possession . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” id. at 177, would qualify for protection. Essential, then, to understanding what weapons qualify as Second Amendment “Arms” is an awareness of how the founding-era militia functioned. The Court explained its understanding of what the Framers had in mind when they spoke of the militia in terms we have discussed above. The members of the militia were to be “civilians primarily, soldiers on
occasion.” Id. at 179. When called up by either the state or the federal government, “these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Id. (emphasis in the original).

 

[legaleagle_45]

Cosmoline wrote:

You need to read up on the history of this great Republic, me boyo. This was a major issue in the early years. Many in Congress felt that body should have the final say in how to interet the Constitution. After the dust settled and Marbury v. Madison was handed down and the Judiciary Act of 1801 repealed and replaced, it was the judiciary that took up that role. And it's been that way ever since

First let me state that I agree 100% with your conclusion, but would quibble with the timing. Marbury v. Madison made the first opening volley. A very dangerous response thereto occurred in the nullification crisis of the early 1830's, with the theory that a single state or combination of states could declare any federal law unconstitutional and refuse to comply with said federal law. The dispute ended with a negotiated settlement that avoided the conflict but did not settle the question... that had to wait until 1865 at a place called Appamatox Courthouse...

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

I'm surprised that the anti's haven't argued that the right to keep and bear arms means that you are allowed to keep all your body parts

 

[mgregg85]

I love hearing that argument out of anti-gun nuts. If the 2A only applies to muskets then the 1A could be said to only apply to quill pens and old hand presses. The government would have an established legal precedent to ban the internet, phones(both land line and cellular), radios and television. I'm sure the vastly liberal media would jump for joy upon hearing this.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

You need to read up on the history of this great Republic, me boyo. This was a major issue in the early years. Many in Congress felt that body should have the final say in how to interet the Constitution. After the dust settled and Marbury v. Madison was handed down and the Judiciary Act of 1801 repealed and replaced, it was the judiciary that took up that role. And it's been that way ever since. This notions have become part of the living Constitution, whether you like it or not.

You still haven't answered the quest. Please point out in the Constitution where Congress or the Court has been given power to interpret the Constitution. All I can find is those powers granted in Article III, Section 2, and that power of the Chief Justice to preside over impeachment trials of the President specified in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.

More on arms tomorrow night.

Woody

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole of the People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796.

 

[Elm Creek Smith]

Arms go bang. Ordnance goes boom.

If I tried to "bear" a nuke, I'd get a hernia.

If it's crew-served, I can't handle it myself, so "keep and bear" are both problems.

I think a good case can be made for "arms" up to and including select-fire rifles and submachineguns.

"Silencers" or suppressors solve the problem of people whining about "noisy guns."

Repeal the NFA of 1934.

ECS

 

[Cosmoline]

it is entirely possible that they made the 2A open-ended as to weapon types

Not when read in context with "keep and bear" or with "well regulated." Besides, what they intended can never really be known. Nor is it all that important. The question is what to make of it now, and how to make it function.

Please point out in the Constitution where Congress or the Court has been given power to interpret the Constitution.

The Court confirmed its power to overturn federal laws that violate the Constitution in Marbury. In order to decide what federal laws are or are not in violation of the Constitution, the Court must interpret the document. That's reality. Maybe you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

 

[glummer]

No restrictive preface

Leagle

Incorrect. The idea was to discern intent. Thus we have this from the Majority opinion in Parker:

The majority was examining Miller, not the 2A directly, and -
The following are cited in the MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL prepared for AG Ashcroft in 2004:

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel
1. The Limits of Prefatory Language.
In the eighteenth century, the proper approach to interpreting a substantive or “operative” legal provision to which a lawmaker had joined a declaration (whether a “Whereas” clause or analogous language) was (1) to seek to interpret the operative provision on its own, and (2) then to look to the declaration only to clarify any ambiguity remaining in the operative provision.69 It was desirable, if consistent with the operative text, to interpret the operative provision so that it generally fulfilled the justification that the preface declared, but
a narrow declaration provided no warrant for restricting the operative text, and the preface could not itself create an ambiguity.
This rule applied equally to declarations located in any part of a law, not simply at the beginning of it, and to both statutes and constitutions. We therefore consider this rule applicable to the Second Amendment.

The King’s Bench reiterated the rule in 1723, rejecting in a criminal case an argument based on declaratory language introducing part of a statute: “Now those general words in the enacting part, shall never be restrained by any words introducing that part
; for it is no rule in the exposition of statutes to confine the general words of the enacting part to any particular words either introducing it, or to any such words even in the preamble itself.” The court acknowledged that “a construction which agrees with the preamble” was desirable, “but not such as may confine the enacting part to it.”72

Madison’s draft of what became the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause read: “the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.”82 The emphasized declaratory language presumably could not have qualified or limited the freedom clearly conferred, such as by exempting from protection, as hostile to “liberty,” publications advocating absolute monarchy.

To my reading that clearly means the Militia clause cannot be used to restrict the Rights clause in any way.

 

[LawBot5000]

A privately owned warship without letters of marque is just a heavily armed private ship.

To become a pirate, they actually have to engage in piracy. Privateers didn't wait around for permission to arm themselves. I don't think anyone did back then. A regular merchant ship without some for of defense was at risk from piracy anyway.

 

[Cosmoline]

A privately owned warship without letters of marque is just a heavily armed private ship.

I think a privately owned SHIP could carry heavy weapons. East India Co. ships frequently did. But private WARSHIPS are another matter. Generally they would have to have some form of crown approval. But of course the line between pirate and privateer was always very fuzzy and got crossed more than once. One nations' dashing hero was another nations' evil scourge.

Anyway, I don't think any of this has direct bearing on the RKBA. The Second doesn't address the law of the high seas.

 

[Cosmoline]

that clearly means the Militia clause cannot be used to restrict the Rights clause in any way

It's just the AG's opinion, of course. It's not even binding on the US Attorneys unless the sitting AG wants to enforce it. It's nice, of course, but it's not law.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

we need a smilie for eating popcorn. This is some fantastic stuff. The only down side is that not even all of us on the same side can't agree.

 

[legaleagle_45]

RoadkingLarry wrote:

The only down side is that not even all of us on the same side can't agree

Yes... I am reminded of a joke, and at the risk of upsetting our most astute, intelligent and all powerful moderators, I offer the foregoing as a slight diversion:

I was in San Fransisco once, walking along the Golden Gate Bridge, and I saw this guy on the bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t jump!” and he turns… And my heart went out to him. I said, “Why the long face?”
He said, “My girlfriend’s suing me! Why was I put on this Earth?”
I said, “My friend, anywhere else you wouldn’t stand a chance.”
He said, “Nobody loves me.”
I said, “God loves you, you silly ninny.”
He said, “How do you know there’s a God?”
I said, “Of course there’s a God. Do you think that billions of years ago a bunch of molecules floating around at random could someday have had the sense of humor to make you look like that?”
He said, “I do believe in God.”
I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”
He said, “A Christian.”
I said, “Me too. Protestant or Catholic?”
He said, “Protestant.”
I said, “Me too! What franchise?”
He says, “Baptist.”
I said, “Me too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Baptist.”
I said, “Me too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist or Northern Conservative Reform Baptist?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Eastern Region?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region.”
I say, “Me too! Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879 or Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”
He says, “Northern Conservative Fundamentalist Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”
I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

 

[gc70]

Anyway, I don't think any of this has direct bearing on the RKBA.

I didn't think recent foreign laws had any direct bearing on the death penalty in the US, but I was proven wrong by the Supreme Court.

You may have a vision of what you believe is the perfect legal structure for the Second Amendment, but courts, and particularly SCOTUS, consider what they want to consider.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The Court confirmed its power to overturn federal laws that violate the Constitution in Marbury. In order to decide what federal laws are or are not in violation of the Constitution, the Court must interpret the document. That's reality. Maybe you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

Your first sentence is correct. It is not as simple as that, however. What it boils down to is that the Court cannot enforce any law or prosecute any violation of a law that has been enacted in contradiction to the Constitution, or that Congress(and others) has been forbidden to approach, or for which Congress has not been granted power to address.

Your second sentence can be taken two ways. Which "document" are you referring to with the last word in that sentence? Are you referring to the written law in question or the Constitution?

Your last sentence is a cop-out. "Just Because" doesn't cut it. I'm still looking for you to show me that declaration in the Constitution that grants power to the Court to interpret the Constitution.

Interpreting the Constitution is tantamount to altering it. One cannot interpret the Constitution and abide it at the same time. Interpreting the Constitution is opposed to the oath everyone in power takes to support it.

It's nice, of course, but it's not law.

So is interpreting the Constitution - especially when it doesn't say what you want and you don't want to bother to amend the Constitution via Article V.

Woody

This crap will continue until the Court stops allowing itself to be misused as a legislative branch of government, or as an alternative to amending the Constitution. B.E. Wood
.
.
.