ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
OK, Bubba, show us where in DC v. Heller the Court said states could put "legitimate" (or any) restrictions on the RKBA.
Woody
House Panel clears National Carry
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
OK, Bubba, show us where in DC v. Heller the Court said states could put "legitimate" (or any) restrictions on the RKBA.
Woody
Birch Knoll
Member
Haven't we already been through this at least once?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ttolhurst said:
Yeah, I covered this in Post #63. Evidently, Bubba613 didn't read it.
Woody
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Here's the end of that exchange.
Birch Knoll
Member
Here it comes...
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Read the whole thing, Bubba. Footnotes and all.
Woody
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
You must read and absorb it all. Anything less such as taking any one paragraph out of the whole is to take it out of context, and I don't think anything in the DC v. Heller decision is there by chance. Their ideologies aside, I don't think any of the Justices are anything less than deliberate. In that respect, I wouldn't consider any of them to be less deliberate than I am, and they are on The Bench and I'm only on a soap box.
Don't count yourself out just yet, Bubba. Legal scholars have seen it, and seen it in its whole context. Antonin Scalia wrote it and four other Justices backed it up. There's five legal scholars for you right there!
Woody
beatledog7
Member
Well, how does a degree or a position make one infallible?
Can't anyone just read the Constitution anymore? It says exactly what it says and only what it says, In case it becomes necessary to change it, it provides a process for amendment. Aside from that, it still says what it says, and only what it says.
For starters it doesn't give any court the power to interpret it. The Supreme Court declared itself empowered to do so--the Founders did not.
Can't anyone just read the Constitution anymore? It says exactly what it says and only what it says, In case it becomes necessary to change it, it provides a process for amendment. Aside from that, it still says what it says, and only what it says.
For starters it doesn't give any court the power to interpret it. The Supreme Court declared itself empowered to do so--the Founders did not.
Birch Knoll
Member
OK, the Court has no power to interpret the Constitution, because the Constitution didn't grant it the power to do so. It doesn't seem to have granted it to any other body, either. So nobody has the power to interpret the Constitution. Not the Supreme Court nor the inferior courts, not you, not me, not anybody.
How, exactly, is that system supposed to work?
How, exactly, is that system supposed to work?
Perhaps you disagree, but John Marshall argued in Marbury v. Madison that judicial review is essentially an inherent power of the Court.
The following quotes from Marbury offer a good summary of his opinion:
Call me crazy, but I buy Marshall's argument.
Last edited:
beatledog7
Member
ttolhurst,
Do we need someone to interpret a stop sign? It says "stop," and without any legal scholars or politicians to hold our hand or guide our thoughts, we know it means "stop."
Every time we pass a stop sign and don't stop--unless a lawfully defined temporary overrule is in place (a policeman, for example)--we're breaking the law.
The Founders meant for the Constitution to be read in the same manner, including 2A. They created a process to change what it says--to make it say something different--but not a process by which any individual or group is empowered to split hairs or read between the lines regarding what it currently says. They also did not give any court the power to act as that policeman we saw above, temporarily overruling the stop sign.
No such power. None. It isn't there. 2A means exactly what it says.
Do we need someone to interpret a stop sign? It says "stop," and without any legal scholars or politicians to hold our hand or guide our thoughts, we know it means "stop."
Every time we pass a stop sign and don't stop--unless a lawfully defined temporary overrule is in place (a policeman, for example)--we're breaking the law.
The Founders meant for the Constitution to be read in the same manner, including 2A. They created a process to change what it says--to make it say something different--but not a process by which any individual or group is empowered to split hairs or read between the lines regarding what it currently says. They also did not give any court the power to act as that policeman we saw above, temporarily overruling the stop sign.
No such power. None. It isn't there. 2A means exactly what it says.
oneounceload
member
Bubba, Beatledog, et al: what well-regulated militia do you belong to?
tyeo098
Member
The unorganized militia is every armed citizen of the United States.
Thanks for playing, try again
Thanks for playing, try again
oneounceload
member
But you are the ones saying all we need is the Second, no interpretations necessary, but now you are saying an interpretation is necessary to validate your statements.
IF the second means "exactly what it says", then there is that "well-regulated part so many exclude. IF it is open to Judicial review and interpretation, then it could also go against you, depending on who makes up the court. Decisions like Heller have been overturned before down the road
IF the second means "exactly what it says", then there is that "well-regulated part so many exclude. IF it is open to Judicial review and interpretation, then it could also go against you, depending on who makes up the court. Decisions like Heller have been overturned before down the road
where does this "unorganized" militia come from? Not from the Second
backatcha
tyeo098
Member
There is no 'militia' now-a-days.
In 1903 (the Militia act of 1903) split "the militia" into 2 separate groups, the Organized, and the Reserve (Unorganized). They are both still parts of the original "Militia."
In 1903 (the Militia act of 1903) split "the militia" into 2 separate groups, the Organized, and the Reserve (Unorganized). They are both still parts of the original "Militia."
Don't ignore my quotes
I dont recall ever saying that. Other people do, ignoring the idea that the constitution gets interpreted all the time, and paying attention to the history of interpretation is crucial.
I suppose Heller could be overturned down the road. So what?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
cbrgator,
You posted only some of the most pertinent parts of Marbury v, Madison. You forgot the part where the Court said:
...(T)o read and obey? Doesn't sound lie "interpret" to me.
And then there is this:
Sounds like the Court - as well as of the Legislature - must abide the Constitution and not "interpret" it. Especially when the Court believes it must read and obey the Constitution.
And of course:
That doesn't sound like only the Courts get to look into the Constitution, read, and obey it.
That is also - and previously - stated in the Second Amendment where it says the right of the people (people being the plural of person) to keep and bear arms, ...
And besides, a militia or a state does not have rights, only the people (the persons) in it have rights. A militia has power subject to the control and sovereignty of a state, and a state has power as codified in its constitution, and said constitution is subject to the sovereignty, will, and the right of the people to alter it as they see fit as codified in said constitution.
Woody
You posted only some of the most pertinent parts of Marbury v, Madison. You forgot the part where the Court said:
...(T)o read and obey? Doesn't sound lie "interpret" to me.
And then there is this:
Sounds like the Court - as well as of the Legislature - must abide the Constitution and not "interpret" it. Especially when the Court believes it must read and obey the Constitution.
And of course:
That doesn't sound like only the Courts get to look into the Constitution, read, and obey it.
Bubba613 said:
That is also - and previously - stated in the Second Amendment where it says the right of the people (people being the plural of person) to keep and bear arms, ...
And besides, a militia or a state does not have rights, only the people (the persons) in it have rights. A militia has power subject to the control and sovereignty of a state, and a state has power as codified in its constitution, and said constitution is subject to the sovereignty, will, and the right of the people to alter it as they see fit as codified in said constitution.
Woody
Birch Knoll
Member
And if I argue that "stop" doesn't really mean stop when it's 3:00 in the morning, and there's not another car in sight for miles, what then? If nobody is empowered to determine the meaning of "stop", and my interpretation is as good as anyone's, of what use is the stop sign?
No, no, I disagree. Clearly the intent of the stop sign is to allow the orderly and safe passage of traffic. Surely, the sign was never intended to require vehicles to stop when there is demonstrably no traffic whatsoever; this is not the situation for which the sign was created or installed. Do I win?
So what happens when you and Chuck Schumer disagree about what the 2nd Amendment means?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
Also see Webster's Universal Dictionary ant Thesaurus:
people n
the body of enfranchised citizens(plural) of a state;a person's family, relatives(plural); the persons(plural) of a certain place, group, or class; persons(plural) considered indefinitely; human beings(plural); (pl) all the persons(plural) of a racial or ethnic group, typically having a common language, institutions, homes, and culture. *vt to populate with people.
At the time the Constitution was written, Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language:1755 says the following:
People
i. A nation; those(plural) who compose a community.
2. The vulgar
3. The commonality(plural) 1. The common people; the people of the lower rank. 2. The bulk of mankind.; not the princes(plural) or nobles(plural).
4. Persons(plural) of a particular class.
5. Men(plural), or persons(plural) in general. In this sense, the word people is used indefinitely, like ou in French.
2. The vulgar
3. The commonality(plural) 1. The common people; the people of the lower rank. 2. The bulk of mankind.; not the princes(plural) or nobles(plural).
4. Persons(plural) of a particular class.
5. Men(plural), or persons(plural) in general. In this sense, the word people is used indefinitely, like ou in French.
See?
Woody
- Status
