Welcome to The High Road.thatwatkinsboy said:...I find it odd to be so quick to taboo the idea of defending your rights by use of the Second Amendment...
...an online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership...
And that still begs the question of who decides that.thatwatkinsboy said:...It seems to me that the Supreme Court does, in fact, have the duty to decide whether something is or isn't "Constitutional"... That being said, the constitution does not give them the authority to "make" things "Constitutional"...
For clarification, she is not a justice of the United States Supreme Court. She is a justice of the Supreme Court of Michigan.Evergreen said:...a disturbing article about a Supreme Court Justice who decided she was above the very law she judges:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...bank-fraud?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE...
First, no one said that a judge is infallible. Judges are human like the rest of us. The legal system has a variety of protections, as do many other professions and callings.Evergreen said:...What if rogue Supreme Court justices like her, make a decision that goes against our Constitution. ...
Considering this infallible criminal could have been one of those to judge the rights of the American people of being constitutional or not, I have my share of reservations and fears....
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Wyoming State Senator Larry Hicks, told The Washington Examiner that this type of legislation sends a message to the federal government in Washington D.C.
Citing the Tenth and the Second Amendments, Hicks asserted that the legislation was Constitutional, adding that he fully expected it to pass in the Wyoming state legislature....
When the law applicable to the matter involves both statute and the Constitution, exercising judicial power to decide the dispute necessarily involves judicial review. As Mr.Chief Justice Marshall put it in Marbury:
So a politician thinks a bill he supports is constitutional. Is that a surprise? What does it really mean? No doubt Feinstein believes the bill she has been talking about introducing is constitutional (with which you no doubt disagree). And no doubt Obama thinks the elements of his gun control agenda are constitutional as well. And I'm sure that District of Columbia officials believed that their gun control law would survive Mr. Heller's constitutional challenge.aeriedad said:So what is the likely result, in the real world? The linked article in the OP tells us that at least one WY State Senator believes the Tenth and Second Amendments support the Constitutionality of the proposed bill....
Let's assume for the sake of argument that your assessment is correct. How would you propose to "fix" it. A frontal assault through a direct court challenge? A constitutional convention to clarify the Constitution (and which would effectively put everything on the table and open everything in the Constitution to change)?aeriedad said:...The problem with that is that the constant expansion of federal power has rendered the Tenth Amendment almost meaningless. All members of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches enter office by an oath to uphold the Constitution, yet all three branches routinely violate the plain meaning of the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court easily justifies such violations by Common Law or by deferring to the Judicial or Executive's Constitutional powers. The Tenth Amendment is barely a speed bump once the federal government fancies any new limit to our liberty...
If it were to come to a state LEO arresting a federal agent for attempting to enforce federal law, my professional opinion is that the question will be answered against the State by a federal court. Do you really think that the State would at that point use force to defy the order of the federal court?aeriedad said:So, again, what is the likely result should the proposed WY bill pass? Does a state have the power to arrest and charge federal agents for attempting to enforce federal laws that conflict with state laws? Will it really come to that, or is this purely symbolic?
And you continue to weave elaborate, gossamer tapestries of empty rhetoric that have nothing to do with the way things actually happen in real life.Sambo82 said:Frank, once again you are citing Supreme Court decisions to argue that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what is Constitutional. ...
I make that argument because that view is supported by over 200 years of law built upon that foundation. We are in fact there, and my analysis describes in part how and why we are there.Sambo82 said:...Also, you have made the argument that based off of the judical powers proscribed in Article III of the Constitution, and based off of the history of Common Law, it is reasonable to, as the Supreme Court has done, assume that they possess the sole power of judical review. Even if that is the case, what if this reasonable assumption leads to unreasonable applications of the Constitution?...
Arguments based on hypothetical are specious. You can construct a hypothetical any way you want to support your conclusions. I don't play that game.Sambo82 said:...Let me give you a completely plausable example. Let's say that the Democrats sweep...
You tell me. You apparently have your own solution. What is it?Sambo82 said:...Frank, where does that leave us? Are we to ignore our Natural Rights simply because, as you put it; "Our legal system is as it is. It represents at this point several hundred years of evolution"?...
Unreasonable to whom? To you? What if it's unreasonable to you but reasonable to someone else? Your "unreasonable" might well be someone's "reasonable."Sambo82 said:...So to summarize; is it still reasonable to assume that the Supreme Court weilds absolute power of judical review (despite said power not being mentioned specifically in the Constitution), IF said power produces unreasonable results?...
Frank Ettin said:...whenever a court makes a major decision that one disagrees with, the judicial system is broken and the judges corrupt. Whenever a court makes a major decision that one agrees with, the judges are great scholars (except any dissenters, who are corrupt), and our courts are the last bulwark against the machination of the political toadies bought and paid for by special interests.
There has been, and probably always will be, a huge negative reaction by a large number of people to every important to the pubic Supreme Court decision. There are plenty of folks who loved Roe v. Wade and hated Heller, and perhaps as many who hated Roe v. Wade and loved Heller.
Most of the time when folks call a decision of a court a bad decision, it isn't really because it didn't comport with the law and precedent. Most people tend to think a court decision is a bad decision because it did not achieve the result they wanted.
...
I like it.If Wyoming passed the proposed legislation it would be purely symbolic because a state cannot nullify a federal law.
If Wyoming was really serious about fighting any kind of weapon ban by the federal government, it would be much more successful if it set up an official Wyoming militia in which all citizens are members and expected to own and maintain suitable "assault" weapons for the defense of the state. Then Wyoming could sue the federal government and claim that the federal ban is preventing it from maintaining a state militia.
Even better would be a law that allowed any qualifying (i.e. age, no criminal background, etc.) person to take an oath and be made deputies in some kind of state citizen police force. That way they would immediately qualify in the "exceptions" portion of a federal gun ban.
All sorts of beliefs and disagreements about the constitutionality of this law or that law. How to resolve them? Where will they end up? The answer of course is in court where such things are finally decided.
And let's not kid ourselves that every politician introducing legislation or supporting legislation necessarily expects that legislation to be enacted or even to pass muster in a court challenge. A lot of that sort of thing is performance art for their constituencies or part of a larger, political strategy. Politics, often called the art of the possible, can be a chess game; and any particular move may not be what it seems.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that your assessment is correct. How would you propose to "fix" it. A frontal assault through a direct court challenge? A constitutional convention to clarify the Constitution (and which would effectively put everything on the table and open everything in the Constitution to change)?
And how sure are you about your assessment? How have you validated it or tested it?
If it were to come to a state LEO arresting a federal agent for attempting to enforce federal law, my professional opinion is that the question will be answered against the State by a federal court. Do you really think that the State would at that point use force to defy the order of the federal court?
On the other hand, the Wyoming law and similar laws already enacted or being consider by other States do convey a political message. Remember, we're playing chess and every move isn't always what it seems.
And you continue to weave elaborate, gossamer tapestries of empty rhetoric that have nothing to do with the way things actually happen in real life.
As to "unreasonable applications of the Constitution", that is your opinion.
Arguments based on hypothetical are specious. You can construct a hypothetical any way you want to support your conclusions. I don't play that game.
You tell me. You apparently have your own solution. What is it?
Yes, there is such a thing as objective truth -- about some things, when proven with sufficient rigor and tested by, among other things, it's ability to predict other things. Objective truth is based on data and observations, which lead to hypotheses, which are then further tested. That is the scientific method.aeriedad said:...But there is such a thing as objective truth, and courts are not immune to political considerations or public opinion. Thus, "court truth" (aka, Common Law) and objective truth (aka, Natural Law) are very often two things...
So how is your particular notion of objective truth, Natural Law and the Tenth Amendment relevant? Why should I, or anyone else, accept your notion of objective truth, Natural Law or the Tenth Amendment. The scientific test of your notion of objective truth, Natural Law and the Tenth Amendment is that it works. Show us how your notion of objective truth, Natural Law and the Tenth Amendment has worked.aeriedad said:...In the world of objective truth, Natural Law and the Tenth Amendment, I think they have a strong case,...
I advise you not to take that risk if you want this thread to stay open.aeriedad said:...At the risk of taking us WAY off-topic,...
Your willingness to bet is not evidence. It's your contention and therefore your burden to prove it with evidence. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."Sambo82 said:...I'm willing to bet that if I asked the question; "Should the Federal Government, under their Enumerated Power to regulate interstate commerce, be able to regulate the food you grow on your own property for your own consumption" that 90+% of people would answer "no"...
"Any candid reading" is simply another code for your opinion. Your entire argument relies absolutely on accepting your opinion of things. Others do not agree with your opinion.The courts certainly have not. And I see no reason to take your opinions seriously.Sambo82 said:...that power is indeed unreasonable under any candid reading of the Constitution....