Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 13

• 0%

  Locky122 months ago

  Sorry. It's the LIBS on the court that wanted to rescind the Second Amendment last week.

  It's the LIBS on the court that think we should treat terrorists we imprison like common criminals thereby giving requiring us to hand over our intelligence to the enemy.

  It's the LIBS on the court that think you should have to give up your home if a developer can prove he can make more money for the state through taxes if he turns your block into a shopping mall.

  The LIBS on the court are taking away our rights.

  God Bless Scalia, Thomas, Alito and C.J. Roberts. They're the ony people that seem to be thinking about the constitution when they decide cases.

  All we need is one more just like them, and maybe we'll have an intact constitution to give to our kids.

  Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

  Nonsense, the debate is not over the lawful sanctity of the 2nd amendment, never was. The debate is whether or not the preamble is a separate issue, or a qualifying issue. The court in the past felt it was a qualifying issue, most law scholars point to other laws of the time with preambles that qualify the law and say it's very likely that indeed because of historical context, that was the intent of the Authors of the document. Jefferson was pretty clear that his take on it was, among other things, that people should be armed to prevent Government from becoming tyrannical (which he felt was the natural course of events).

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 0%

    Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

    Though Madison who actually drafted the document seems to have meant that the Federal Government would not take away the States militias. Analysis of Madison's original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England's Declaration of Rightsâ;;strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia.

    Reply

    4 Replies

    • 0%

      Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

      I agree with the ruling, by the way. But it's not black and white simple. Madison did not feel there was even a need for the Bill Of Rights, as he claimed any power not granted the Federal Government in the constitution was not legal anyway.

      It was drafted because the states demanded it. (In return for ratification.)

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

        That being said, we need scholars on the court, not political puppets of any flavor. Getting Bush out of a DUI was no reason to nominate Harriet Miers. That was pathetic.

        Reply
    • 0%

      Locky122 months ago

      But the keyword is "people" to bear arms. NOT militias.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

        Historically though, (just devils advocate so to speak as I agree personally with the ruling)people were in fact forced to own their own weapons for use in state militias hence it would be worded that way.

        I understand how this could be seen differently. I go with Jefferson on this one. And the new "clarification".

        Reply
• 0%

  Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

  DC's law was poorly drafted anyway and even many advocates of gun control doubted it would pass constitutional scrutiny. Will New York's gun laws be challenged now though? They are not as poorly drafted and may pass the test. We shall see.

  This last ruling didn't bother me, but previous ones have.

  How it is constitutional for MaoMart for instance to take people's homes and land under eminent domain statutes is an example of a terrible decision the "conservative" judges were all for. (Where in the constitution do corporations have superior rights to individuals?) Many of Bushs claims about the super executive are clearly not constitutional, the removal of Habeas Corpus etc. In the past, judges have taken their responsibility to the constitution seriously and placed it above political favor. In recent years there have been some questionable decisions.

  Reply
• 0%

  aniokly2 months ago

  We were one Liberal vote away from losing our second amendment right to keep, and bear arms. That is very scary. We need a Pepublican President to nominate Supreme Court Justices in the next term.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Radiofreeeuropa2 months ago

    Did you not understand the truth about the debate stated above? There is no one conservative or liberal on the court who "will take our guns away". No one. This vote was about the role of the preamble to the second amendment, and the language of DC's poorly drafted bill. I'd worry more about anyone appointed by a man who claims the constitution is just a "God D***ed piece of paper" than what political party appointed the judge. The reality is urban areas suffering from gun violence want to control the flow into their cities. Do they have a right to do that? How does it harm you or any gun owner if N.Y. city requires a license to own a gun if you don't live there? (I don't see any evidence that gun control works, as 80% of all gun crimes are committed with illegally obtained weapons already even though they are freely available). However the kneejerk reactionary comment you just made is blatantly false.

    Reply
• 0%

  kboy2 months ago

  I think that this is a smoke screen on the real problem with activist judges. The last several years of Court decisions are not using the interpretation of the Constitution as the law says they should but using foreign law and feelings to make US law. This seems to be legislating from the Bench. Congress gets to make laws. The President gets to sign them into law. The Court system says if they are Constitutional. The key word is Constitutional. If they are Constitutional, they are enforced.

  Reply
• 0%

  endtyranny2 months ago

  When I talk about this, I like to refer to the recent ruling reinstating habeas corpus. Writing for the dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said that this ruling would result in American deaths. Now, aside from that being a complete load of crap, that dissenting opinion contained no constitutional argument and read just like a Wall Street Journal editorial (and Justice Roberts wasn't much better). We are under the threat of these extremist right wing judicial activists. They've already ruled against free speech and tried to shut down habeas corpus and they seem to be determined to throw out the bill of rights (everything but the 2nd, of course).

  Reply
• 0%

  doppich2 months ago

  Let's remember that the recent additions to the court could have been blocked by the Democrats in the Senate. But that would have required that they abandon their standard practice, which is to avoid confrontation, roll over and cave in.

  Reply