SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again.. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again..


syntaxerrorsix
07-29-2012, 17:45
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.


Yeah, we need a progressive lib to make sure we get more conservative justices.

I put this squarely on the shoulders of those that approve of the idea of the Incorporation Doctrine and those that feel that Marbury v Madison allowed SCOTUS to define our COTUS.

Fools.

Brucev
07-29-2012, 19:17
Jefferson rightly understood the problem of the sc claiming the power of judicial review. When Marshall tried to make it stick, Jackson told him where to shove it. Good man. Good decision. More power to men like him who refuse to allow unelected judges to make law, etc.

Bren
07-29-2012, 19:26
Jefferson rightly understood the problem of the sc claiming the power of judicial review. When Marshall tried to make it stick, Jackson told him where to shove it. Good man. Good decision. More power to men like him who refuse to allow unelected judges to make law, etc.

Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

"Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."

syntaxerrorsix
07-29-2012, 19:33
Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

"Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."

More importantly where do you think they derive the power to interpret the COTUS? It isn't in the COTUS. That would be an unlimited power of the Judicial branch. So much for checks and balances eh?

syntaxerrorsix
07-29-2012, 19:36
Truthfully I can read. This include the federalist papers and the like. It doesn't require an opinion. It requires competent people taking the available writings at face value and avoiding constructionalism.

jakebrake
07-29-2012, 19:50
More importantly where do you think they derive the power to interpret the COTUS? It isn't in the COTUS. That would be an unlimited power of the Judicial branch. So much for checks and balances eh?


and sadly, this was bound to happen. the scotus is the pit of vipers that we can do nothing about.

steveksux
07-29-2012, 19:52
Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

"Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."Exactly right. The whole reason for the Electoral College electing the President rather than voting direct for them, appointing Senators rather than electing them, and appointing SCOTUS judges for life was to form more checks and balances against mob rule, the tyranny of the majority.

To insulate them from the hot passions of the unruly mob that is pure democracy. They purposely avoided a democracy and created a republic instead. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches being coequal branches are not the only checks and balances they set up.

Randy

countrygun
07-29-2012, 19:59
Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

"Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."


In his writings Jefferson was quite clear that he was not in favor of a judiciary with the power of a "Supreme Court" that was not elected by the people. Unelected and not subject to reelection by the people he felt that they could, and would grow in power beyond being just the last Court of appeals, that includes appeals on Constitutional issues. he felt they would begin to legislate from the bench with impunity.
He felt a system, where the judges would be appointed by politicians and confirmed by politicians, would become "political" with the people completely left out of the process and no readily available means of redress.
The idea of anyone having that much power, without the blessing and at the will of the people was a danger.

G29Reload
07-29-2012, 21:00
if he were going to be the originalist he is, in the days of the revolutionary war cannons were in private hands and pressed into service.

So if I were going to go with a limit, its light arttillery.

20mm
40mm
50bmg.

and everything below it, including handgrenades. Which I understand ARE legal to purchase.

So long as you get the 200 tax stamp.

Too bad they're only good for one use. :whistling:

countrygun
07-29-2012, 21:15
and everything below it, including handgrenades. Which I understand ARE legal to purchase.

So long as you get the 200 tax stamp.

Too bad they're only good for one use. :whistling:


In my State they aren't covered by my CWP .

CAcop
07-29-2012, 23:10
File this under "Well, duh."

There are time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. There are exceptions to the fourth amendment and warrant requirements. Cruel and unusual punishment is an every evolving concept. Hell, Miranda warnings alone eat up a lot of their time even though the need to read them is written no where in the constitution. Like it or not the consitution can only be a guide as the world changes. Case law, stacked up over the centuries, is an even bigger guide.

Let's face it the Supremes are there to be the umpire. If the Executive and Legisative branhes get out of line they call them out on it. They don't have an army or police force to enforce it. Their only real authority is their decorum. Elected judges would be exactly like the clowns in office in DC. They would be clowns in a three ring circus.

Jerry
07-29-2012, 23:23
Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

"Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."

This is a re-post but you post begs for truth and reason.

Never forget, the Supreme Court/Government is not the ruler of The People. The People are the rulers of the Supreme Court/Government. Funny how "they" keep telling us otherwise isn't it.

Frightened tyrants have always tried to regulate arms... even in this country.That's why the founders wrote the Second. Just because the "sheriff" says you can't have guns in town doesn't make it legal. We were all created with certain unalienable rights. The first of which is life. No man has the "right" to prevent one from defending that right. Criminals carry weapons. Its only right that honorable men should too.

The founders wanted The People to have the means to protect/defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Only a tyrannical government would try to keep the same arms carried by police and military out of the hands of The People. Scalia seems to have forgotten that. Hopefully its just a momentary laps.

sbhaven
07-30-2012, 07:08
SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again..
Dupe. :winkie:
‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1434840)

Yeah, we need a progressive lib to make sure we get more conservative justices.
Or one can simply vote for Obama (or vote 3rd party, or not vote at all) and let him stick one or more Kagan/Sotomayor on the bench...

Lest some forget, Sotomayor LIED about her views on 2A during her confirmation hearing. She claimed that 2A was settled law, then promptly votes against 2A (and the Bill of Rights) by decenting in the Chicago case.

JohnnyReb
07-30-2012, 08:07
Dupe. :winkie:
‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1434840)


Or one can simply vote for Obama (or vote 3rd party, or not vote at all) and let him stick one or more Kagan/Sotomayor on the bench...

Lest some forget, Sotomayor LIED about her views on 2A during her confirmation hearing. She claimed that 2A was settled law, then promptly votes against 2A (and the Bill of Rights) by decenting in the Chicago case.

Congress is vastly more important. They can block liberal appointments. I could care less about romney vs obama. I am concerned about congress though. As long as true conservatives occupy congressional seats, we have nothing to fear.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

syntaxerrorsix
07-30-2012, 09:04
Dupe. :winkie:
ĎIt Will Have to Be Decidedí Whether Govít Can Regulate Some Types of Guns (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1434840)


Rats :wavey:

sbhaven
07-30-2012, 09:44
Congress is vastly more important. They can block liberal appointments. I could care less about romney vs obama. I am concerned about congress though. As long as true conservatives occupy congressional seats, we have nothing to fear.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Agree that getting real conservatives into Congress is vastly more important. However Congress does not initially select the Supreme Court Justices, the President does. Congress simply gives the thumbs up or thumbs down to who ever the President selects.

Which is why having someone in the Oval Office who won't go looking for and then selects the most far left people they can find for Supreme Court Justice is at least a little bit important.
:dunno:

GAFinch
07-30-2012, 09:52
if he were going to be the originalist he is, in the days of the revolutionary war cannons were in private hands and pressed into service.

So if I were going to go with a limit, its light arttillery.

20mm
40mm
50bmg.

and everything below it, including handgrenades. Which I understand ARE legal to purchase.

So long as you get the 200 tax stamp.

Too bad they're only good for one use. :whistling:

Cannons were legal back then, but there was a defined difference between arms (handguns and long guns) and ordnance (cannons, grenades, etc). The 2A only mentions arms.

JohnnyReb
07-30-2012, 09:57
Agree that getting real conservatives into Congress is vastly more important. However Congress does not initially select the Supreme Court Justices, the President does. Congress simply gives the thumbs up or thumbs down to who ever the President selects.

Which is why having someone in the Oval Office who won't go looking for and then selects the most far left people they can find for Supreme Court Justice is at least a little bit important.
:dunno:

Let him select liberals. Congress needs to confirm them. That means he will have to compromise.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
07-30-2012, 10:12
File this under "Well, duh."

There are time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. There are exceptions to the fourth amendment and warrant requirements. Cruel and unusual punishment is an every evolving concept. Hell, Miranda warnings alone eat up a lot of their time even though the need to read them is written no where in the constitution. Like it or not the consitution can only be a guide as the world changes. Case law, stacked up over the centuries, is an even bigger guide.

Let's face it the Supremes are there to be the umpire. If the Executive and Legisative branhes get out of line they call them out on it. They don't have an army or police force to enforce it. Their only real authority is their decorum. Elected judges would be exactly like the clowns in office in DC. They would be clowns in a three ring circus.

I think somewhere in his writings Jefferson suggested that the court be nominated and confirmed by the process we have, but that there be, after a period of time, a reconfirmation by popular vote. A "vote of confidence" if you will.

Knowing the normal amount of apathy present in human nature it would probably take a record of noticably incorrect decisions to garner a "no confidence vote"

Of course one must also take in to account that the life expectancy was considerably shorter in the time that the SCOTUS system was set down.

Jefferson struggled with the need to avoid the vaugeries of politics, the need for consistency, the fear of a branch of Government not responsive to the people, and the need to insure stability for the future of the Country. He had no intention of the SCOTUS being the wise old men (in his time) that are unelected, who sit cloistered in an ivory tower deciding what is best for the people.

bobthellama42
07-30-2012, 13:40
I think somewhere in his writings Jefferson suggested that the court be nominated and confirmed by the process we have, but that there be, after a period of time, a reconfirmation by popular vote. A "vote of confidence" if you will.

Knowing the normal amount of apathy present in human nature it would probably take a record of noticably incorrect decisions to garner a "no confidence vote"

Of course one must also take in to account that the life expectancy was considerably shorter in the time that the SCOTUS system was set down.

Jefferson struggled with the need to avoid the vaugeries of politics, the need for consistency, the fear of a branch of Government not responsive to the people, and the need to insure stability for the future of the Country. He had no intention of the SCOTUS being the wise old men (in his time) that are unelected, who sit cloistered in an ivory tower deciding what is best for the people.

:goodpost: