ConstitutionCowboy
member
Discredit: Comment # 26
Rather than present an argument, you claim my source of information is faulty.
Besmirch: Comment #31
I don't see it your way, so I must be stupid or ignorant
Obfuscate: Comment #39
When taken in context, there is only one meaning for any of the phrases or words in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were quite adroit, terse and blunt in the way they wrote the Constitution in order to avoid any confusion. Here is a funny thing you might find interesting: The words in the Constitution pretty much mean the same thing today as they did back then. In any event, the definitions that applied to the words when the Constitution was written are the definitions that count.
I agree.
I'd add that there is another side of the "Due Process Clause" wherein the government has a duty to engage in and complete due process before anyone can be denied life, liberty, or property. The prohibition on individuals to carry defensive weapons on their person would be a denial of due process. What had these people been charged and convicted with that they had been denied the liberty of providing for their own well-being and had been denied the right to keep and bear arms; all of which cost 32 of them their lives?
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."
Sure it does. Which constitutional scholars/experts are you reading?
Rather than present an argument, you claim my source of information is faulty.
Besmirch: Comment #31
But you're not doing a very good job of understanding it.
I don't see it your way, so I must be stupid or ignorant
Obfuscate: Comment #39
Since many of the words - and phrases - in the Constitution have multiple meanings, the Supreme Court has to decide what they mean. In addition to the multiple meanings of many of the words at the time the Constitution was written, there is also the issue of how the meaning of some words have changed over the centuries. Take the word militia as an example and the other meanings it has acquired over the years.
When taken in context, there is only one meaning for any of the phrases or words in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were quite adroit, terse and blunt in the way they wrote the Constitution in order to avoid any confusion. Here is a funny thing you might find interesting: The words in the Constitution pretty much mean the same thing today as they did back then. In any event, the definitions that applied to the words when the Constitution was written are the definitions that count.
209 said:Having said all of that, there are supposed to be some loopholes, or exceptions, in the above ruling. Some legal experts think if the case is proven that a state-created or state-enhanced danger was caused by some state action, another lawsuit may well be successful. Maybe some sharp lawyer can plead the “gun-free” policy created a state enhanced danger which caused the state to have a “duty to protect”. It’d be an interesting argument.
I agree.
I'd add that there is another side of the "Due Process Clause" wherein the government has a duty to engage in and complete due process before anyone can be denied life, liberty, or property. The prohibition on individuals to carry defensive weapons on their person would be a denial of due process. What had these people been charged and convicted with that they had been denied the liberty of providing for their own well-being and had been denied the right to keep and bear arms; all of which cost 32 of them their lives?
Woody
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:
"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."