SCOTUS, in any generation of its 230-year history, has always managed to manipulate interpretation of the Constitution; mostly to their detriment [Both the Constitution and SCOTUS]. Take the first amendment. Its very first commentary deals with freedom of religion. it must have been important to founders, namely James Madison, to mention it first. We often refer to Jefferson, who was not the author, by the way, as offering us the language of "separation," as in of church and state. However, at the time, Jefferson was separated from both church and state while our ambassador to France when Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. But, the full descriptive of freedom of religion enjoins Congress to be forbidden to create a religion in the first place [the "establishment" clause] AND to not forbid practice of its free exercise.
The religion gig is followed directly by freedom of speech, and we manage to understand that one very well, unless we're talking about religion. After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo. The two interpretations combat one another, don't they? You think that's what Madison had in mind, who was the primary author of the Constitution?
Manipulation of the Constitution: Freedom of religion and speech.
Posts
Total:
29
-->
@fauxlaw
did you watch the interview of the N.J. governor? he was asked about his orders violating the constitution and where he got the authority to do that (paraphrasing) His answer was that it was above his pay grade.
Let the lawsuits begin!!
even in recent years the court hijacked the meaning of the second amendment. if you look at conservative judges back as recent as the reagan years, you'll see they interpreted it to protect militia, not an individual right to a gun. all you have to do is look at the lack of any evidence at all that the amendment protects an individual right, back when the amendment was passed. every other amendment has clear purpose in the legislative history, but there's no mention of self defense or hunting or any of that for the second amendment. other than a skewed interpretation, there's no evidence for individual rights to a gun outside a militia.
-->
@n8nrgmi
then explain how individuals can purchase, own and carry firearms? You keep beating that dead horse don't ya, you need a new hobby.
District of Columbia v. Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
yet again scholars and legal minds have reached this conclusion along with evidence of practice, precedence and writings other than the constitution.
the right to life obviously means defense otherwise there would be no right to life if you can't defend it, I mean come on seriously?
we've been down this road so many times before, there's nothing new to discuss so why bother?
Consider that we have 27 amendments. Fully 8 of them, almost 1/3, have tried to address just voting, and it still is not clear.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Read of it, but did not see the video. Yeah, and this will demonstrate, once again, why a bus filled with lawyers going over a cliff is a good start.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i'm just bored right now, so felt the need to debate a dead horse topic, by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation.
there is a right to self defense, but that's a ninth amendment thing. you could extend that right to the use of a gun, but it's still a ninth amendment thing, not second. i notice you didn't post any evidence that the founders meant to protect an individual right to a gun. you can't, because there isn't any
-->
@n8nrgmi
lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun
No, the 2A doesn't offer the right to just own a gun. It doesn't mention guns, does it? What it mentions is the right to bear ARMS, and, lest you point it out, that does not mean we must avoid long-sleeve shirts.
Arms are a non-specific description of weapons, not just guns. As such, the inclusion of guns is a given, but includes knives, bows and arrows, and, I suppose, rocks. It does not include nuclear weapons because they are classified, meaning unavailable to ordinary citizens. Further, the 2A stipulates we have the right to bear [own and use] arms, and not be infringed by Congress from doing so. Nor does it imply that only if we are in a militia is that right given. It is given so that, if required, we may be part of a militia. That looks like evidence to me.
-->
@fauxlaw
oh I thought that arms were the things that hung by my side, connected to my shoulders dur-hur
-->
@fauxlaw
After telling us we essentially have liberty to say whatever we damn well please, accepting all consequence of such speech, as is prudent, we interpret by back-up and say, arbitrarily, and incorrectly, that our freedom of speech is curtailed in the public practice of religion - any religion. Prayer, in public is taboo.
I must have missed that one, when was public prayer outlawed?
-->
@n8nrgmi
<br>by pointing out the lack of any evidence whatsoever that the amendment protects an individual right to a gun, other than a skewed interpretation.
Even using the militia interpretation, citizens can only form a militia if they have access to guns.
-->
@ILikePie5
A militia armed with sticks and stones is still a militia if they intend to utilize those sticks and stones for military purposes..
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
when was public prayer outlawed?
Two Supreme Court decisions: Engel v. Vitale [1962], and Abington School District v. Schempp [1963]
I
-->
@fauxlaw
I must have misunderstood. I thought when you said public prayer was outlawed that you were saying that it was made illegal.
-->
@dustryder
A militia armed with sticks and stones is still a militia if they intend to utilize those sticks and stones for military purposes..
But that wasn’t the intention of the a The Founding Fathers. Militia meant Americans with firearms.
-->
@ILikePie5
Let's not pretend anyone knows the intentions of the founding fathers to exact detail.
-->
@dustryder
Let's not pretend anyone knows the intentions of the founding fathers to exact detail.
Are you claiming that to the Founding Fathers arms meant sticks and stones? Cause that’s delusional lol.
-->
@ILikePie5
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't be applying any extra meaning as to what a militia is. I used the sticks and stones example to demonstrate that a militia is "type of arms" agnostic. A militia is generally a military force raised from civilians, regardless of what arms they carry, or whether or not they even currently carry arms.
-->
@dustryder
No. I'm saying that we shouldn't be applying any extra meaning as to what a militia is. I used the sticks and stones example to demonstrate that a militia is "type of arms" agnostic. A militia is generally a military force raised from civilians, regardless of what arms they carry, or whether or not they even currently carry arms.
To form a militia you have to have weapons open to the public. Unless you classify those weapons as sticks and stones, there’s no justification for banning guns. The Court has made it very clear that to form a militia arms are needed. Banning arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
-->
@ILikePie5
To form a militia you have to have weapons open to the public.
Not really. A government could distribute arms to a militia for example.
Unless you classify those weapons as sticks and stones, there’s no justification for banning guns. The Court has made it very clear that to form a militia arms are needed. Banning arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd Amendment.
Discussing an interpretation of the 2a has nothing to with banning guns.
Not really. A government could distribute arms to a militia for example.
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government out of it....
Discussing an interpretation of the 2a has nothing to with banning guns.
Its not an interpretation if that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted lol. They wanted people to have guns lol.
-->
@ILikePie5
It was an example. The point was that a militia is not predicated on being armed or having weapons open to the publicThe whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to keep the government out of it....
Its not an interpretation if that’s what the Founding Fathers wanted lol. They wanted people to have guns lol.
If it were so clear cut and dry as to what the founding fathers wanted, there wouldn't be a debacle over what the 2a means.
-->
@dustryder
It was an example. The point was that a militia is not predicated on being armed or having weapons open to the public
Then a militia is simply a group of people lol. Without weapons you can’t have a militia.
If it were so clear cut and dry as to what the founding fathers wanted, there wouldn't be a debacle over what the 2a means.
Because Democrats don’t like the way 2nd Amendment, so they create a narrative based on emotion rather than the intention of the Founding Fathers which was very clear: Americans should have guns. And this interpretation is common in various Federalist Papers and as a result has been upheld in the Supreme Court today.
-->
@ILikePie5
Nah. If militia are miltary forces, and military forces have applications outside of shooting guns at people, militia also have applications outside of shooting guns at people. Hence arms are not a requirement for being militiaThen a militia is simply a group of people lol. Without weapons you can’t have a militia.
Because Democrats don’t like the way 2nd Amendment, so they create a narrative based on emotion rather than the intention of the Founding Fathers which was very clear: Americans should have guns. And this interpretation is common in various Federalist Papers and as a result has been upheld in the Supreme Court today.
No, that's your incorrect interpretation of democratic positions. The opposite and equally ridiculous assertion is that Republicans love the 2nd amendment so much that any and all interpretation of the 2nd amendment is skewed towards as free ownership of guns as possible.