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

[Anarchist420]

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

 

[DominionSeraph]

The world is bigger than your angst.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deC2uxu0XA4

 

[Rainsford]

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]

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]

There is not a single amendment, right, or freedom in the US that is "absolute."

Never has been either.

 

[Anarchist420]

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]

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.

 

[DominionSeraph]

True, but I meant an absolute limitation on the govt.

The laws of physics provide those, just as they do for everything else.
But really, they're quite pesky.

 

[Jaepheth]

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.