Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the things that came out about Ms Sotomayor and her interpretation of the Constitution during the recent hearings is very important IMHO.
When asked about her views on Second Amendment rights she stated (I am paraphrasing not quoting her exact comments) that the Second Amendment just prohibited FEDERAL laws restricting gun owners rights. According to her any State or local government can pass laws restricting and regulating ARMS.
In other words any State or local government could legally pass a law that would even go so far as to PROHIBIT (i.e. INFRINGE) the Right TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
If this interpretation of the Constitution is allowed and up held concerning the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights it would seem logical to me that ALL of the other rights delineated in the first through tenth amendments could be infringed by State and Local governments.
In other words a City Council in a city could pass a law that would allow local Police to stop and search any person that they wanted to without cause. A CC could pass an ordinance allowing police to arrest anyone within the city limits that is displaying a bumper sticker supporting a particular viewpoint.
This might be OK with those of you who hate guns and the right of law abiding gun owners to exercise those rights. HOWEVER it might also be used to pass laws in any jurisdiction in the country to OUTLAW things like; Homosexual cohabitation; Displaying of Tatoos ; Owning more than one book ; Reading literature not approved by the local lawmakers - - -
This type of judicial behavior is very very dangerous and if for NO OTHER reason I don't think Sotomayor should be confirmed.
In other words any State or local government could legally pass a law that would even go so far as to PROHIBIT (i.e. INFRINGE) the Right TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
This type of judicial behavior is very very dangerous and if for NO OTHER reason I don't think Sotomayor should be confirmed.
GL2
This wounded Vietnam Veteran approves of Gunluvver2 message.....
This may be the quote you're talking about. Source
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that -- how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.
As you pointed out, Senator, in the Heller decision the Supreme Court was addressing a very narrow issue, which was whether an individual right under the Second Amendment applied to limit the federal government's rights to regulate the possession of firearms. The court expressly -- Justice Scalia, in a footnote, identified that there was Supreme Court precedent that has said that that right is not incorporated against the states.
What that term of incorporation means in the law is that that right doesn't apply to the states in its regulation of its relationship with its citizens. In Supreme Court parlance, the right is not fundamental. It's a legal term. It's not talking about the importance of the right in a legal term. It's talking about, is that right incorporated against the states?
When Maloney came before the 2nd Circuit, as you indicated, myself and two other judges read what the Supreme Court said, saw that it had not explicitly rejected its precedent on application to the states, and followed that precedent. Because it's the job of the Supreme Court to change it.
SEN. LEAHY: Well --
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: You asked me -- I'm sorry, Senator.
SEN. LEAHY: No, no, go ahead.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I didn't mean to cut you off.
SEN. LEAHY: No, go ahead.
JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: You asked me whether I have an open mind on that question. Absolutely. My decision in Maloney and on any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court when it speaks directly on an issue. And I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a justice on the Supreme Court.
Right here - have a look at the 10th Amendment. Gunluvver2's OP is spot-on.
Ah, while I know that most folks like yourself are only interested in the 2nd and 10th Amendment, there are a couple of more. Anyway, the point is the selectivity in which the issue of state's rights is approached.
Just for the record, I disagree with Sotomayor on the issue that the 2nd only applies to Federal regulation, being a Federalist and all.
Now where are all those state's rights conservatives when you need them?
The states have alot of indisputable rights. Violating the civil rights of US citizens just is not one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
