GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 17:45   #1
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,829
SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again..

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729

Quote:
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.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID


Last edited by syntaxerrorsix; 07-29-2012 at 17:46..
syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:17   #2
Brucev
Senior Member
 
Brucev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,189
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.
Brucev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:26   #3
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 36,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brucev View Post
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."
__________________
Quote:
This is the internet, where you could pretend to be anything you want; so how come so many people on this forum pretend to be limpwristed sissies?
- Me, 2014.

Last edited by Bren; 07-29-2012 at 19:28..
Bren is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:33   #4
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
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?
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:36   #5
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,829
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.
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:50   #6
jakebrake
cracker
 
jakebrake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: too close to philly
Posts: 7,915
Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
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.
__________________
God made man, Sam Colt made us equal, John Moses Browning made us civilized... freemasons club Number 57
jakebrake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:52   #7
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 14,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
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

Last edited by steveksux; 07-29-2012 at 19:53..
steveksux is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 19:59   #8
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
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.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 21:00   #9
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 12,348
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.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 21:15   #10
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post

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.

In my State they aren't covered by my CWP .
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 23:10   #11
CAcop
Senior Member
 
CAcop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 21,974
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 wonder if your assessment of "The Wizard of Oz" would sound something like "A teenaged orphan runs away with three psychotic AD/HD patients and a little dog. She kills the first two women she meets." --Sinecure 07/03/2006
Freakin' awsome!! Kickin it old school. Hot sheet on the dash. The report was probably only two sentences. Long live Rencko and Bobbie Hill!--WhiskeyT
CAcop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 23:23   #12
Jerry
Moderator
 
Jerry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 8,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
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.
__________________
Jerry
BIG DAWG #4

Liberal: Someone who is so open-minded their brains have fallen out.
Guns are not dangerous, people are.
Jerry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 07:08   #13
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again..
Dupe.
‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix View Post
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.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 07-30-2012 at 07:13..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 08:07   #14
JohnnyReb
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
JohnnyReb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FEMA REGION III
Posts: 5,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhaven View Post
Dupe.
‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns


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
__________________
Confederate General Albert Pike: The struggle against oppressive authority is universal and eternal.
JohnnyReb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 09:04   #15
syntaxerrorsix
CLM Number 301
Anti-Federalist
 
syntaxerrorsix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lakeland, FL.
Posts: 9,829

Rats
__________________
Sappers Forward
841st Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 81ARCOM, 84th Eng (Cbt/Hvy) 2ACR, 40th Eng (Mech) 1AD, 588th Eng (Mech) 4ID

syntaxerrorsix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 09:44   #16
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyReb View Post
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.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 09:52   #17
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,796
Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
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.
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.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 09:57   #18
JohnnyReb
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
JohnnyReb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: FEMA REGION III
Posts: 5,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbhaven View Post
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.
Let him select liberals. Congress needs to confirm them. That means he will have to compromise.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
Confederate General Albert Pike: The struggle against oppressive authority is universal and eternal.
JohnnyReb is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 10:12   #19
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
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.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 13:40   #20
bobthellama42
Senior Member
 
bobthellama42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: under tyranny
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
__________________
"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison
bobthellama42 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:55.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 925
293 Members
632 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31