Constitutional Crisis?

[wbm]

Are we headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis

We are already there.

 

[TomJ]

Court packing goes both ways. "We the People" already did that in 2016-2020 and current Supreme Court make up won't likely change significantly for quite a while.

When I hear the term court packing I think of expanding the court, adding judges which will rule in your favor. Replacing judges who have retired or passed away isn't the way I've heard the term used when discussed recently.

 

[TomVA]

Interesting discussion, but can anyone answer the OP's question: "To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings".

Waiting years for these matters to make their way up to the Supreme Court will leave a long wake of damage and injustice. Is there a faster alternate route?

 

[redcon1]

When I hear the term court packing I think of expanding the court, adding judges which will rule in your favor. Replacing judges who have retired or passed away isn't the way I've heard the term used when discussed recently.

Exactly. At the risk of delving into politics, this is primarily what I'm voting to prevent next month. We need to keep the court as it is for as long as possible to keep Heller, McDonald and now Bruen solidly embedded in our legal code at the local, state and federal levels. There can be no legal "wiggle room" for them. After a while, it should become clear to them that they not only can't win this fight but even fighting this fight will cost them. Eventually, hopefully, the cost of fighting this fight will not be worth it to them. But if they managed to pack the court, that plan almost certainly goes tango uniform and we're back to endless fighting on this issue and unable to really move on to other issues that are important to all of us which is really the ultimate goal IMO.

 

[kidneyboy]

Interesting discussion, but can anyone answer the OP's question: "To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings".

Waiting years for these matters to make their way up to the Supreme Court will leave a long wake of damage and injustice. Is there a faster alternate route?

Answered in post #10.
There are faster and more effective routes. A brief look into what happens to tyrannical governments throughout history will hint at that solution.

 

[gifbohane]

New Jersey under the present Governor and Democratic legislature has surpassed California as the worst state for gun owners. Murphy is intent on totally ignoring SCOUS on gun issues, having his Senate & House lackeys pushing the most extreme restrictions and outrageous fees. The only word for this regime is oppression. Our heavily Democratic urban districts who suffer the most from gang violence are solidly in their pockets come election time, believing the lie that more laws will protect them from the criminals with the guns in their neighborhood.

These new laws were introduced into the assembly last week and Governor Murphy will be signing them by the end of this week. One honest assemblyman asked the liberals three times "Tell me where a firearm CAN be carried in New Jersey"

No Answer. Maybe up in a hot air balloon.....

 

[Remington1911]

Are we headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis over states and localities resisting the Bruen decision? I was helping a middle school kid in my family with a worksheet on checks and balances recently, and, as I talked through it, I realized these gun control governments are deliberately violating the Bruen ruling and there seems to be no readily available remedy to this.

President Andrew Jackson refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision regarding native lands in Georgia, saying something to the effect of they've made their decision, let's see them enforce it. Are we on a similar path now?

To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings-especially absent support from the other two branches? Especially in the face of entrenched opposition to their rulings.

Not just that but a great many other things that are forbidden on this site.

I would love to comment on your Jackson comment, but again don't think I can on this site, shame so much can be learned.

 

[GEM]

No, the question is posited on how gun folks think this is an important issue. Surveys (granted polling stinks) show that gun issues are low in the rank of crucial concerns nowadays. NY has the CCIA. It's being challenged in court. There are the letters to the editor and legislators denouncing it. Is there a thousands of persons march anywhere - no.

The new laws and challenges to Bruen will meander for years through the courts until Scotus (if they do) can stop monkeying around with legal weeds like levels of scrutiny or historical precedent rules and make clear and definitive statements based on the language of shall not be infringed. Now of course, there are sensible limits but they are easy to state rather than the convoluted crap Scotus puts out.

1. No locales can be banned unless there is a strict technical reason for such - ex. the gun in the MRI room. A court proceeding. Perhaps in airplanes.
2. Private property rights for businesses open to the public do no trump carry rights. SD is more important than property rights. They are not absolute. Businesses are controlled by zoning, fire, health, construction standards, etc. They cannot discriminate against protected classes. SD is in such a category and property rights are not absolute. You don't have to have a business if you don't like it.
3. Criminal checks, mental checks (adjudicated and not a test demanded for purchase or ownership) are reasonable for purchases.
4. Training is not to be mandated unless we put in training to vote - Haha! Of course, I'm all for training but it's being used for a block. Same with insurance.

That's the idea - stop yapping about scrutiny and history - this is the standard.

 

[SSN Vet]

I'm sorry to have to say it... but New York (specifically NYC) rots.

They have never, ever been for freedom... to the point that they didn't even vote for independence in 1776 (they voted "abstain").

 

[ms6852]

The cure for this sort of problem is actually built into our form of government... and November is coming.. Seriously, folks generally get the government they ask for and that's why places like New York are what they are. I won't go any further - but simply get out and vote the so and so's out of office if they're not doing what they should. Me, I figure that the next election might actually be a good start...

This^^^^^^^^^^^. There is always a lot of talk but hardly anything is ever done. All that is required is a vote. The scary part is that the majority of us that are gun owners and enthusiasts seldom exercise our privilege and depend on others.

 

[LiveLife]

The cure for this sort of problem is actually built into our form of government... and November is coming

simply get out and vote the so and so's out of office if they're not doing what they should ... next election might actually be a good start...

Yes it is.

My second signature line - "Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections."

The founders framed our government so "We the People" decide and self govern.

So how will the Supreme Court ruling be enforced when executive and legislative branches won't?

"We the People" will decide.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Court packing goes both ways. "We the People" already did that in 2016-2020 and current Supreme Court make up won't likely change significantly for quite a while.

You've posted a lot of most excellent stuff that I've enjoyed reading, but this statement is exceedingly incorrect.

While it's true that the current balance is 6/3 Republican to Democrat nominated Justices, how the Presidential election cycles go can shift the balance quite easily. Between the 2024 and 2028 elections, the top 3 Justices, all Republican nominated, will span ages from 73-77 (Roberts), 80-84 (Thomas), and 78-82 (Alito).

While it's true that the top two Democrat nominated Justices will be up there as well (74-78 (Sotomayor) and 68-72 (Kagan), a simple shift of even 1 Justice could cause problems with a resulting 5R/4D balance, and certainly with 2.

While those who retire tend to do so when the politics work in their favor, this isn't a guarantee. And health is always a concern for those who reach 7 and 8 decades of life.

"Quite a while" isn't really all that much when you're talking about Presidential election cycles. Expecially when those who are in power (the big two in our politics, the Republicans and Democrats) are actually looking at these things WAY far ahead of the average citizen and work exceptionally hard to affect the balance of the Supreme Court as part of their long term election strategies.

 

[crstrode]

To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings-especially absent support from the other two branches? Especially in the face of entrenched opposition to their rulings.

It cannot.
The judicial branch lacks enforcement power.

 

[230RN]

Depends on what exactly is a “constitutional crisis”?

I tend to be of the opinion that we’ve been in “second amendment crisis” since at least 1934 and a constitutional crises since at least March 4, 1913… buts that’s a different issue.

You're quite right, in my opinion, but D.B. Cooper used the phrase "some sort of Constitutional crisis" without specification, which allowed for a wide window of discussion.

I'm glad you used the term "at least," because indeed the battle goes further back than 1934 --I cite New York's "Sullivan Law" of the 1920s. And maybe even back before then to the first town sheriff who banned guns from "his" town.

After all, people elected to power wanted it.

Terry, 230RN

 

[illinoisburt]

All new laws passed by a legislature and signed into action are presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise in court. This creates a bit of a game for states which do not wish to follow decisions on personal rights issues. NYC, CA and Illinois were long time masters of a game of cat and mouse with the court system when it comes to firearm rights. They pass laws which they know will not hold up in court with the understanding that until the law is contested at the district level and has gone through both an appeal and en banc review it will likely be enforceable on the streets. If they loose all the way up the ladder, the standard practice is to replace the law with a new one if it looks like the Supreme court might grant cert. They can then argue the case is moot since the law no longer exists and restart the entire process. This was done successfully for decades and was attempted in the Bruen case. It was an anomaly the courts decided to proceed this time. So I would fully expect the same tactics to repeat which will allow their jurisdictions to keep up the restrictions for at minimum maybe a dozen or more years, or until such time that an executive branch is willing to withhold money from the state for non-compliance. Of course the hope of these states and cities is enough time will pass that the court makeup can change more to their favor if or when it finally does come to a head.

 

[westernrover]

The court ruled, and some states are defying it. This isn't a new dilemma. The Marbury vs. Madison case exemplifies the situation. Briefly: Marbury (and others) received commissions by outgoing President John Adams, and incoming President Jefferson's administration refused to serve them and seat these justices. In this case, the court faced three dilemmas: First, did Marbury and the other appointees have a right to their commissions? Second, if they did have a right that had been violated, did federal law provide a remedy? Finally, was an order from the U.S. Supreme Court the right remedy to solve the problem? The outcome with respect to the third dilemma would determine whether the court had the power to enforce a decision that another branch of government might oppose. In essence, Marshall faced the dilemma at that time: what would happen if the Jefferson administration chose to simply ignore the court? He could have sided with the administration to avoid exposing a weakness in the nascent court, or he could dare to oppose it and risk the loss of legitimacy if it was found the court could do nothing.

 

[LiveLife]

You've posted a lot of most excellent stuff that I've enjoyed reading, but this statement is exceedingly incorrect.

... current balance is 6/3 ... a simple shift of even 1 Justice could cause problems with a resulting 5R/4D balance, and certainly with 2

True ... I stand corrected.

 

[TomJ]

Don't underestimate the power of voting, and grass root efforts to get out the vote. Think about your family, friends, co-workers, people in clubs or groups you belong to. There are most likely quite a few people you can encourage to register to vote, if they haven't done so and then go out and vote. If someone needs a ride to a polling place on election day, offer them a ride if you can. I guarantee you the anti's are doing this and more.

 

[westernrover]

So to Marbury vs. Madison we have similarly three dilemmas with respect to Bruen etc. Do the people have the right to concealed carry in most places in the US? Second, if they do have such a right, have some states violated the 2nd Amendment (and the 14th) with laws that infringe on those rights? Third, is an order from the Supreme Court the right remedy to solve the problem?

In this discussion, we seem to be construing that the court has already found that states have broadly violated citizens' rights to bear arms. The court has not ruled in such broad terms. Considering the second and third dilemmas, the court should be cautious to do so. While such a ruling would be supported by the ideology of people here and by the ideology we hope the justices possess, finding that federal law had a remedy for violations of an unprecedented interpretation of the 2nd Amendment might not be so easy. An order from the court demanding fifty-state permitless "constitutional carry" would be ideologically correct and welcome, but is it the right remedy to solve the problem?

 

[LiveLife]

have some states violated the 2nd Amendment (and the 14th) with laws that infringe on those rights?

They sure have and the Supreme Court just changed the test to be used for the Second Amendment by eliminating the "two step" approach and now the courts must use only "text and history" approach.

Why?

Because the "Supreme Court of the United States" appointed by "We the People" said so.

So consider this - What existed before 2022 no longer applies and as previous article stated, this Second Amendment "test change" is REVOLUTIONARY. What has been pounded into our heads for decades by the antis NO LONGER MATTERS. In 2022 moving forward, what the SCOTUS has ruled MATTERS.

As expressed in the article, "If the government can’t produce at least three analogous gun laws from before Teddy Roosevelt’s presidency, then it can’t regulate today"

What the anti-gun law makers and governors did the past several decades will now be dismantled all across the country, up and down the circuit/district courts as we are seeing right before our eyes and anti-gun state laws will be ruled unconstitutional at district/circuit court levels or ultimately at the Supreme Court level ... And the antis know it - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-aw-magazine-ban.905531/page-10#post-12427677

This is part of what Assosiated Press recently reported and believe me, we are just getting started on the "Open season on US gun laws" - https://apnews.com/article/gun-viol...ngs-politics-f919b74dc95062f322389349f35c0e93

AP News: “After Supreme Court ruling, it’s open season on US gun laws”

• The Supreme Court changed a test lower courts had used for evaluating challenges to gun laws (Eliminated the two-step approach) and now only weigh whether the law is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

• The Supreme Court ruling "threatens" gun control laws across the country on everything from bans on AR-15-style guns to age limits

• Taylor D. Rhodes, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, told The AP that his group was considering going after other gun measures in Colorado ... “The Bruen decision gave us a 4-ton wrecking ball.”

• The Supreme Court ruling could dramatically reshape gun laws in the US

• “The gun rights movement has been given a weapon of mass destruction, and it will annihilate approximately 75% of the gun laws eventually" - Evan Nappen, a New Jersey gun rights attorney

• “Supreme Court has given an invitation for the gun lobby to file lawsuits against virtually every gun law in America" - Jonathan Lowy, chief counsel and vice president at Brady, the gun control group

• The Supreme Court has ordered lower courts to take another look at several other cases under the court’s new test (CA and NJ laws that limit magazine capacity and 2013 MD ban on “assault weapons”)

• Gun rights groups are also challenging similar bans in California, New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

 

[SharpDog]

Are we headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis over states and localities resisting the Bruen decision? I was helping a middle school kid in my family with a worksheet on checks and balances recently, and, as I talked through it, I realized these gun control governments are deliberately violating the Bruen ruling and there seems to be no readily available remedy to this.

President Andrew Jackson refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision regarding native lands in Georgia, saying something to the effect of they've made their decision, let's see them enforce it. Are we on a similar path now?

To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings-especially absent support from the other two branches? Especially in the face of entrenched opposition to their rulings.

Yes and not just on 2A laws.

 

[LiveLife]

checks and balances ... gun control governments are deliberately violating the Bruen ruling ... To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings-especially absent support from the other two branches? Especially in the face of entrenched opposition to their rulings.

Yes and not just on 2A laws.

Can you explain specific to 2A?

 

[theotherwaldo]

We have been in a constitutional crisis for some time and will continue to be in one until the various city, state and federal administrations return to respecting and following the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... .

 

[Insignificant bill]

When I hear the term court packing I think of expanding the court, adding judges which will rule in your favor. Replacing judges who have retired or passed away isn't the way I've heard the term used when discussed recently.

Yep, that was not court packing. What those in power want to do would be court packing.

 

[dogtown tom]

Are we headed toward some sort of Constitutional crisis over states and localities resisting the Bruen decision? I was helping a middle school kid in my family with a worksheet on checks and balances recently, and, as I talked through it, I realized these gun control governments are deliberately violating the Bruen ruling and there seems to be no readily available remedy to this.

President Andrew Jackson refused to comply with a Supreme Court decision regarding native lands in Georgia, saying something to the effect of they've made their decision, let's see them enforce it. Are we on a similar path now?

To what extent, and in what ways, can the judicial branch enforce their rulings-especially absent support from the other two branches? Especially in the face of entrenched opposition to their rulings.

As you noted, resistance to USSC decisions is nothing new.
Brown vs Board of Education said separate but equal was unconstitutional. While Little Rock is the best remembered example of Federal intervention, there were battles over desegregating schools well into the 1980's....Boston for example.