Originally Posted by John Rambo
SCOTUS rules on constitutional issues. By their very nature, then, they must interpret the constitution. Thats the only way to rule on things. So theres no way around that one unless you want to restructure the American form of government.
And again, none of those stances fit the word 'infringe' so there is no problem here. The constitution has been respected.
I guess you missed the shall issue part. Its also a right to marry, however people have to get a marriage license to marry, right?
However, like I said, I'm kinda on the fence about that one. I've only ever known a shall issue licensing state, so I don't have much to compare it to. I will say I oppose may issue states.
“Shall not be infringed” means exactly that, (read the definition that you posted) there is no “interpreting” it to mean anything else. The SCOTS cannot change what is written.
Guess you must have missed the pay for part. I’m sorry to be the one to have to tell you… making people jump through hoops and having to pay for a license IS AND INFRINGEMENT
in spite of your opinion that it is not. No pay, no license. Show me where the Constitution grants the power to charge to exercise a right.