• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Can Supreme Court Justices truly rise above their personal ideology?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
0
0
Hmm...Not to hard IMO wolf.

"equal protection of the law" - everyone in USA has right to be protected by the law equally?
"due process of law" - everyone in USA has right to be adjudicated by the law equally and through same motions not extrajudicial BS like assassinating US citizens?
"necessary and proper" - Make (necessary) laws to carry out your enumerated powers so long as they don't violate any part of Constitution (Proper)?
"unreasonable searches and seizures?" - That is subjective.
Ummm... a lot of those are debatable and have been debated for a long time.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Aside from the actual founding document which is explicit we are left with how one reads the myriad of following decisions which is the basis of current interpretation in the law. Stare decisis brings all prior decisions to bare on the current case before the court... every one of them! How on point or relevant to the issue is a matter for the court to determine. Given five of them are more or less from one side of the spectrum and four from the other it is no doubt that we get 5/4 splits. They are left to ponder the question in good faith and I personally find them to be of such moral character that their obvious bias in this process is clouded by their sub-conscious one.
As time passes what once was settled law becomes unsettled because other following - even if remote as to being on point - decisions whittle away at the foundation that allowed a prior court to opine one way or another.
I think the key is found in the unconscious mind of the Justices. They are controlled by that and regardless of any other factor they opine with confidence that they have done what their oath requires... They see it as they do and we see it as we do... IMO, of course...
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Hmm...Not to hard IMO wolf.

"equal protection of the law" - everyone in USA has right to be protected by the law equally?
"due process of law" - everyone in USA has right to be adjudicated by the law equally and through same motions not extrajudicial BS like assassinating US citizens?
"necessary and proper" - Make (necessary) laws to carry out your enumerated powers so long as they don't violate any part of Constitution (Proper)?
"unreasonable searches and seizures?" - That is subjective.
Equal protection. OK, does that mean if you have a law that precludes discrimination in say, housing, on the basis of race, that means the law, or some other law, must also protect people from discrimination on the basis of say, sexual preference? How about on the basis of being left handed, or wearing shorts? Basically, your explanation is a repetition of the words, not an explanation of their effect in any real world situation.

"Due process of law" has nothing to do with "equality." It means, in certain situations, people are DUE a certain PROCESS of law. Meaning, for example, the right to a hearing on...something or other. And the composition of that hearing...unknown. It generally means the state can't fuck with you unless you have a fair hearing. Beyond that, all the particulars have been decided by courts interpreting the phrase.

Necessary and proper are not self-defining words. The scope of power conferred by those words has been debated endlessly.

Incidentally, the Federalist papers are of little assistance in interpretting the Bill of Rights, as they were written before the Bill of Rights, and in fact the authors opposed a Bill of Rights. Let alone all subsequent amendment such as the 14th.

Anyway, billions of words have been written about the proper interpretation of the Constitution. It's sheer fantasy to contend that it is clear and unambiguous.

- wolf
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
The fact is that you are the epitome of partisan hack.
Quite the opposite, but you are an ideologue such that someone who isn't a hack, would be called on by you. You are a contra-indicator. Your insult is a compliment.

The day you say I'm right, I'd need to look for what I did wrong.

But time wasted on idiots is time wasted, so I'll stop now.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Quite the opposite, but you are an ideologue such that someone who isn't a hack, would be called on by you. You are a contra-indicator. Your insult is a compliment.

The day you say I'm right, I'd need to look for what I did wrong.

But time wasted on idiots is time wasted, so I'll stop now.
A partisan hack and a joke, learned to multitask I see.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Wolfe9999 said, in part:
"Incidentally, the Federalist papers are of little assistance in interpretting the Bill of Rights, as they were written before the Bill of Rights, and in fact the authors opposed a Bill of Rights. Let alone all subsequent amendment such as the 14th."

I'd refer you to Tommy's Virginia 'Bill of Rights' and the comments made during their adoption by the State government at that time.

I'll post the Virginia BoR's here...
Virginia Bill of Rights
June 12, 1776


A D[SIZE=-1]ECLARATION OF [/SIZE]R[SIZE=-1]IGHTS[/SIZE] made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free Convention; which rights do pertain to them, and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.
1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right, to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the publick weal.
4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of publick services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge, to be hereditary.
5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for publick uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the publick good.
7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.
8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favour, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers.
9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
10. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offence is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive, and ought not to be granted.
11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred.
12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotick governments.
13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
15. That no free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our C[SIZE=-1]REATOR[/SIZE], and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Honestly the constitution has some serious flaws because it was written several hundred years ago with limited knowledge of the future. People say its a living document, but it seems dead as door nail to me.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
The constitution is a broad document, a framework. A good justice applies that framework to the law. Liberal justices simply alter the framework when they don't like it, the end goal is much more important to them then than following the law.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
The constitution is a broad document, a framework. A good justice applies that framework to the law. Liberal justices simply alter the framework when they don't like it, the end goal is much more important to them then than following the law.
Thank you, parrot of right-wing mythology and ignorance.
 

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,865
5
0
The fact is, IMO, that we have 4 radical right-wingers on the court.

The only side that has an ideology, and an organization and big funding to push it, to radically change the constitution's interpretation, is the radical right, with the Federalist Society, started IIRC in the 70's.
LOL. When the Democrat Party tells you the sky is red, you'll readily agree with them.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
This is baloney. Every person believes in the idealogy of the party it believes in. You are no different................
True.

But some lefties are more ideological than other lefties. Same with righties.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
No, see the latest 2nd Amendment ruling for evidence in how close the constitution came to being crapped all over in such an obvious case is alarming. Presidents appoint partisan hack judges to counter the other faction's partisan hack judges.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,876
6,896
126
Consider the landmark 5-to-4 ruling in 2008 that the ambiguously worded Second Amendment protects against the federal government an individual right to bear arms. (The same five justices held last month that gun rights also apply against states.)

All nine justices claimed to be following the Second Amendment's original meaning. Yet the bitter liberal-conservative split perfectly matched the factions' apparent policy preferences.

After reading and rereading the 154 pages of opinions to discern who was right about the original meaning, I saw it as a dead heat. So historical research provides no escape from subjectivity. And conservative originalists' claims of being deferential to democratic governance ring hollow after the two gun decisions and other recent rulings.
I got to this and realized the author can't rise above his OWN ideology.

To call the differences in the Second Amendment debate "a dead heat" is just about as biased as one can be.

In the thread debating the USSC decision, the CLEAR winner in the debate over the founder's original intent was the position of individual freedom.

Fact: There are countless quotes of the founders defining the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: There is absolutely NO evidence to the contrary. NONE.

The dissenting Judges offered NO, and I mean NO historical evidence for their revisionist history. Hell, one even pushed aside the obvious history and claimed we'd be better if we tried to be like Europe. WTF is this guy smoking if he thinks it was a "Dead heat???"

Now, we can have that debate here, again, if you like but the result will be the same.

The author of this editorial has very little business speaking of other's personal bias and going so far as to judge a USSC debate when he so obviously cannot rise above his own blatant personal bias.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
No, see the latest 2nd Amendment ruling for evidence in how close the constitution came to being crapped all over in such an obvious case is alarming. Presidents appoint partisan hack judges to counter the other faction's partisan hack judges.
Are you really incapable of understanding that highly disciplined minds can read the 2nd Amendment and come to vastly different understandings as to its meaning? Did you even bother to read the article author's evaluation of District of Columbia v. Heller?

To me, the 2nd Amendment's qualifying phrase about "a well regulated militia" greatly constrains the right to bear arms. Otherwise, why would the framer's have bothered to include that phrase? Yet you - apparently - think ignoring the impact of "a well regulated militia" on the 2nd Amendment's meaning is "obvious."

It must be great to live in a world without nuance.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
53,876
6,896
126
Are you really incapable of understanding that highly disciplined minds can read the 2nd Amendment and come to vastly different understandings as to its meaning? Did you even bother to read the article author's evaluation of District of Columbia v. Heller?

To me, the 2nd Amendment's qualifying phrase about "a well regulated militia" greatly constrains the right to bear arms. Otherwise, why would the framer's have bothered to include that phrase? Yet you - apparently - think ignoring the impact of "a well regulated militia" on the 2nd Amendment's meaning is "obvious."

It must be great to live in a world without nuance.
No, it's is clear what the founders meant, and the dissenting judges offered NO historical evidence, Shira. None. Did you even READ the opinions??? The reference used by stevens was a contemporary left wing anti-gun hack. Not a SINGLE dissenting judge quoted a founding father, or original text. Not one.

Read the Opinion, especially Scalia's dressing down of Steven's despicable opinion; that the court should MAKE the law, Constitution be damned, rather than interpret the law and allow the People through their reps to make the law.

Steven's opinion is downright fucking scary, and is ALL coming form the "living breathing document" crap the left tries to apply to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's code for "means whatever the fuck we want it to mean."

Nuance? Bullshit. Try revisionism and lies.

So, how is this unclear, Shira?

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

As for your argument over the mention of a militia in the amendment:

First: The militia refered to in the Bill of Rights is every able bodied man able to take up arms.

And second: You fail at reading comprehension.

What if this were an amendment?

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Would that mean only the well educated had the right to read and compose books???

Of course not. The right to read books applies to all so a well educated society could exist and preserve a free society (something that's failed you, obviously).

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment CLEARLY applies to THE PEOPLE. Not a militia. It exists so a militia may be formed from amongst THE PEOPLE. And in EVERY other Amendment, "THE PEOPLE" are individual citizens. A militia is a collective. The PEOPLE are individuals.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "collective right" nor is there ANY part of the Bill of Rights that grants rights to the governement. No, the Bill of Rights exists to preserve INDIVIDUAL rights.

I want you to post ONE quote from a single founding father that shows otherwise. Just one.

Oh wait, you can't...

In short, you fail. Miserably. And so does the Author of the article you posted. "Dead heat" my ass.
 
Last edited:

bl4ckfl4g

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2007
3,669
0
0
Both sides have a clear ideology that trumps the law. Righty judges are slightly better imo but they too let their ideology get in the way.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,183
3,872
126
I got to this and realized the author can't rise above his OWN ideology.

To call the differences in the Second Amendment debate "a dead heat" is just about as biased as one can be.

In the thread debating the USSC decision, the CLEAR winner in the debate over the founder's original intent was the position of individual freedom.

Fact: There are countless quotes of the founders defining the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Fact: There is absolutely NO evidence to the contrary. NONE.

The dissenting Judges offered NO, and I mean NO historical evidence for their revisionist history. Hell, one even pushed aside the obvious history and claimed we'd be better if we tried to be like Europe. WTF is this guy smoking if he thinks it was a "Dead heat???"

Now, we can have that debate here, again, if you like but the result will be the same.

The author of this editorial has very little business speaking of other's personal bias and going so far as to judge a USSC debate when he so obviously cannot rise above his own blatant personal bias.
This is truly comedic, a perfect example of the inability to rise above ones personal bias.

There are four justices that lean a bit to the left and 5 that lean to the right and this decision came down right in line with ideology. If by accident of nature there had been 5 to 4 the other way we would have gun regulation bans as being constitutional. There can't be a bigger joke than this and no bigger catastrophe for the nation then when 5 state rights clowns interfered in Florida law and elected Bush.

The Supreme Court is a joke and a mockery of justice because it has declared that what justice is depends on who has packed the court.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
199
101
In short, you fail. Miserably. And so does the Author of the article you posted. "Dead heat" my *ss.
Applause for an excellent total post, annihilating the whole "dead heat" bs.

Excellent post. As usual the left wants to apply revisionist retroactive logic to the constitution to make it fit their agenda. Normal judges can look at the actual law along with supporting evidence (like the federalist papers etc) to see what the intent was, and come to a conclusion. People can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, so there's some subjectivity in there, but it takes a real activist liberal judge to just completely throw out the actual law and create new law to fit their agenda.
 

MJinZ

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 2009
8,192
0
0
Applause for an excellent total post, annihilating the whole "dead heat" bs.

Excellent post. As usual the left wants to apply revisionist retroactive logic to the constitution to make it fit their agenda. Normal judges can look at the actual law along with supporting evidence (like the federalist papers etc) to see what the intent was, and come to a conclusion. People can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions, so there's some subjectivity in there, but it takes a real activist liberal judge to just completely throw out the actual law and create new law to fit their agenda.
Um, that's how it works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Thank you, parrot of right-wing mythology and ignorance.
It's not really mythology or ignorance. He has recent history on his side. SCOTUS ruling about the Chicago handgun ban. 5-4, with the liberal judges giving the utmost ridiculous reasons for voting to slam down against the 2nd amendment. So yeah, it does happen.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
No, it's is clear what the founders meant, and the dissenting judges offered NO historical evidence, Shira. None. Did you even READ the opinions??? The reference used by stevens was a contemporary left wing anti-gun hack. Not a SINGLE dissenting judge quoted a founding father, or original text. Not one.

Read the Opinion, especially Scalia's dressing down of Steven's despicable opinion; that the court should MAKE the law, Constitution be damned, rather than interpret the law and allow the People through their reps to make the law.

Steven's opinion is downright fucking scary, and is ALL coming form the "living breathing document" crap the left tries to apply to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It's code for "means whatever the fuck we want it to mean."

Nuance? Bullshit. Try revisionism and lies.

So, how is this unclear, Shira?

The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

In the last Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court stated this in their decision:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

As for your argument over the mention of a militia in the amendment:

First: The militia refered to in the Bill of Rights is every able bodied man able to take up arms.

And second: You fail at reading comprehension.

What if this were an amendment?

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Would that mean only the well educated had the right to read and compose books???

Of course not. The right to read books applies to all so a well educated society could exist and preserve a free society (something that's failed you, obviously).

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment CLEARLY applies to THE PEOPLE. Not a militia. It exists so a militia may be formed from amongst THE PEOPLE. And in EVERY other Amendment, "THE PEOPLE" are individual citizens. A militia is a collective. The PEOPLE are individuals.

There is NO SUCH THING as a "collective right" nor is there ANY part of the Bill of Rights that grants rights to the governement. No, the Bill of Rights exists to preserve INDIVIDUAL rights.

I want you to post ONE quote from a single founding father that shows otherwise. Just one.

Oh wait, you can't...

In short, you fail. Miserably. And so does the Author of the article you posted. "Dead heat" my ass.
What you think is clear, serious Constitutional scholars across many years dispute.

Saul Cornell describes the product of Second Amendment scholarship in recent decades as "law office history", a form of advocacy scholarship intended to influence the way courts decide constitutional questions. This legal scholarship has influenced the way briefs are written and also is used by judges when deciding a case.

Moreover, Cornell contends the simplified dichotomy between the older individual right interpretation and the later collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment is false: "The original understanding of the Second Amendment was neither an individual right of self-defense nor a collective right of the states, but rather a civic right that guaranteed that citizens would be able to keep and bear those arms needed to meet their legal obligation to participate in a well-regulated militia." David Thomas Konig ascribes to a similar viewpoint, writing: "No individual right existed unrelated to service in a well-regulated militia; no effective militia could serve its purpose without an armed citizenry." He also stated that the collective and individual right interpretations are really "products of present-day normative agendas that have polarized the debate into two competing and largely ahistorical models."
You've provided quotations, but many of them are themselves subject to interpretation. Further, you haven't provided a random set of quotations, only a set the you believe supports what you WANT the 2nd Amendment to mean.

You are like ideologues of all stripes: You insist that what YOU believe is "truth," and that what anyone else believes is true must be a product of their intellectual dishonesty. Kind of like religious fanatics insist that their set of beliefs is "the one, true faith."
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
It's not really mythology or ignorance. He has recent history on his side. SCOTUS ruling about the Chicago handgun ban. 5-4, with the liberal judges giving the utmost ridiculous reasons for voting to slam down against the 2nd amendment. So yeah, it does happen.
Yes, it really is both. Whatever you think of the one ruling on guns, a topic that the Supreme Court had largely avoided over 200 years with controversy, he made a false generalization about the only side that 'interprets' the constitution being the 'liberal' judges, and not the 'good' other judges, when the opposite is much more accurate. What I said is exactly right.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY