• 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."

Yet another reason I dislike the U.S. Federal Constitution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Scalia supports more gun control than we already have and the originalist claims the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

I agree with him that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, because Washington's Admin stole the arms of the whiskey rebels and used them for the military. Madison taxed foreign-made arms and supported having a large standing military (that covered most of the world just like we have today). He would've worded the 2nd Amendment differently if he had intended for it to be absolute.

Am I the only one here who doesn't like how the judges interpret the U.S. Federal Constitution for all? Why wouldn't you rather have at least some decentralization and/or 2/3 majorities required?

Link
 
Last edited:

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Well first of all, requiring a 2/3 majority only requires one more justice than the 1/2 majority does (6/9 vs 5/9), so I don't know how much difference that would make.

Secondly though, I don't think decentralization would be good because it would lead to Balkanization. If legal issues could ultimately be decided at a more local level, then there would really be nothing legally tying the country together. If California legislation was ONLY answerable to California's Supreme Court and Texas legislation only answerable to Texas courts, how soon before Texas and California would seem like different countries instead of different but fundamentally American states?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,154
22,748
136
Scalia supports more gun control than we already have and the originalist claims the 2nd Amendment is not absolute.

I agree with him that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, because Washington's Admin stole the arms of the whiskey rebels and used them for the military. Madison taxed foreign-made arms and supported having a large standing military (that covered most of the world just like we have today). He would've worded the 2nd Amendment differently if he had intended for it to be absolute.

Am I the only one here who doesn't like how the judges interpret the U.S. Federal Constitution for all? Why wouldn't you rather have at least some decentralization and/or 2/3 majorities required?

Link
If it helps at all, this thread is yet another reason I dislike you.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,305
753
126
There is not a single amendment, right, or freedom in the US that is "absolute."

Never has been either.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
There is not a single amendment, right, or freedom in the US that is "absolute."
True, but I meant an absolute limitation on the govt.
Well first of all, requiring a 2/3 majority only requires one more justice than the 1/2 majority does (6/9 vs 5/9), so I don't know how much difference that would make.
I was actually considering mentioning that in the OP, but it also meant that 2/3 of the States would be required to confirm an appointment.

If legal issues could ultimately be decided at a more local level, then there would really be nothing legally tying the country together.
The articles of Confederation and perpetual union united Americans quite well, the Federal Constitution divided them.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
The articles of Confederation and perpetual union united Americans quite well, the Federal Constitution divided them.
Well, if you toss out history, sure, things were going swimmingly under the Articles. Why not just let people not pay taxes and rise in armed rebellion against the country instead? That's a sure path to community and peace.

I was actually considering mentioning that in the OP, but it also meant that 2/3 of the States would be required to confirm an appointment.
We already require the consent of the Senate, who represent every state equally, and today's filibuster-happy Senate means a supermajority is already necessary. Going down to the state legislatures would just cost enormously more time and money and no one would ever get appointed.
 

Jaepheth

Platinum Member
Apr 29, 2006
2,572
25
91
Almost anything the founding fathers would have considered a firearm (short of a cannon) is already legal.

You can purchase a fully operational pre 1899 reproduction blackpowder matchlock, wheel-lock, flintlock, or percussion cap firearm and have it mailed directly to your home without any background check unless your state prohibits it.

From the founding fathers' perspective there is NO gun control in America today at the federal level. :colbert:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY