Is Justice Clarence Thomas taking over Scalia's mantle of most pro-2nd Amendment...?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, those who subscribe to the concept of a "living and breathing" Constitution spit in the face of those who had the foresight to write a document that could be a guide to self governance for over 200 years. The "living and breathing" wing have effectively killed it.
 
Nope, those who subscribe to the concept of a "living and breathing" Constitution spit in the face of those who had the foresight to write a document that could be a guide to self governance for over 200 years. The "living and breathing" wing have effectively killed it.


The problem with treating the U.S. Constitution (or any other law) as a "living" document or applying current definitions to it, is that you are upholding something that was never passed in the first place.
 
Yep. If it was a "living document" and subject to interpretation, there would be no need for the amendment process. It means what it says in black and white. If you don't like it, try to get enough people to agree to amend it.
 
Can you imagine the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Freedom of Speech or Religion was a collective right?


It's a scary thought, but to the "lets contort it to mean what we want today" crowd, it would be just as easy to restrict free speech to the elected representatives of the republic as a collective right in the same way they would like to restrict the 2A to government militias.


Local governments do this all the time, and are rarely challenged. They often refuse to allow citizens to speak at public meetings on the basis that the city council members were elected to speak for them.
 
I believe Justice Samuel Alito is right up there with Justice Thomas as being a strong RKBA advocate.
I once believed John Roberts wouldn't be the swing vote for Obamacare. Ya can't always tell with these guys.
 
I once believed John Roberts wouldn't be the swing vote for Obamacare. Ya can't always tell with these guys.
Read up on the behind-the-scenes of Dred Scott, and a whole lot of stuff about those two Roberts opinions starts to make sense. Like, the fact the same now-debunked logic about the meaning of words being used to justify a position by a jurist not known for such Ginsburgian gymnastics. Suggested duress or a different author, it was so out of character, same as with Dred Scott. Like with that old case, it'll be generations before the truth gets out, but it still explains the odd coincidences well.

TCB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top