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.
So it is ok to yell fire or bomb in a theater or large crowed building?
It's been discussed at length before. Yes, it is OK to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded room. If there is a threat, then you have become a hero. If there is no threat and everyone ignores you, then you just look stupid. If there is no threat and there are injuries during the evacuation then you are at minimum criminally negligent and responsible for what you have done.
The Constitution SHOULD trump the Supreme Court. But until they change their mind - they represent the law of the land.
Right/wrong is not so clear many times.
So the Supreme Court is more powerful than the document that established it? That should be impossible. The problem is that Congress doesn't have the guts to impeach a justice who rules against the Constitution.
Right and wrong is always clear but the Court chooses to ignore the Constitution. In Korematsu v. United States, it should have been an easy decision. Every justice that decided in favor of the US should have been removed by Congress.
So the Supreme Court is more powerful than the document that established it? That should be impossible. The problem is that Congress doesn't have the guts to impeach a justice who rules against the Constitution.
Right and wrong is always clear but the Court chooses to ignore the Constitution. In Korematsu v. United States, it should have been an easy decision. Every justice that decided in favor of the US should have been removed by Congress.
I don't agree that right and wrong is always clear. If that were true, there would be little argument what is constitutional and what is not.
People will never stop disagreeing on what the establishment clause means - for example.
I would never claim the Supreme Court is always right. That many decisions are split shows 9 people don't agree on right and wrong. I happen to believe Roe v. Wade is a ridiculous decision because right to privacy has nothing to do with ending the life of a fetus.
It's the question as to whether I have the right to carry an inanimate object into a building.
Actually, the question is whether you have the right to carry an inanimate object that the Constitution says you can carry wherever you want into a Federal building.
Not allowing every nut-job who purchases a gun without a background check, to carry that gun into some places (i.e.. a Federal Bldg), in my opinion, is a reasonable limitation.
Even though the 2nd amendment flatly prohibits such a restriction?
The 14th amendment also flatly prohibits a restriction saying black people cannot enter that same Federal building.
I can dig up more than one person (usually from the deep South) who believes that that restriction on black people is completely "reasonable". And that Southerner is just as sincere as you are (and just as wrong).
Does your sincere belief (or the southerner's) make it OK to violate a clear constitutional prohibition?
Does 51% of the popular vote, make it OK to violate a clear constitutional prohibition? Whether it's about guns or about black people?
The 14th amendment says that no government can deny the privileges or immunities of any citizen due to skin color, ethnicity etc., all citizens must get equal treatment.
Imagine if a Federal building put up a sign in a hallway saying, "No black people allowed past this point". The outrage would be immediate and overwhelming, for obvious reasons: Not only is it hugely insulting and detrimental to blacks who don't deserve such treatment, but it is a flagrant violation of the 14th amendment. The Fed govt's job is to uphold and obey that (and all other) amendments, not to violate it.
Now imagine if a Federal building put up a sign that said, "No guns allowed past this point". That is just as much a violation of a Constitutional right, as the other sign would be. And law-abiding American citizens who would like to carry a gun (as the Constitution explicitly permits), have done nothing to deserve being treated like second-class citizens this way. Yet many Federal buildings have exactly such a sign, and they even try to enforce it.
We certainly can't put the first sign (about black people) in a Federal building. Why can we put the second (about law-abiding people carrying guns)?
This is actually an interesting argument on its premise. A sound one actually. I can only say that the Founders set up SCOTUS to answer these types of Constitutional questions. SCOTUS has, through the years, determined that reasonable restrictions on our rights are just and Constitutional in their nature. As to whether one agrees with them or not is neither here nor there. They are the court which was set up by our Founders to do this. Thus, I can only say that it's due to the interpretation of the Constitution which has allowed this. Does SCOTUS get it right every time? No. However, we as citizens must abide by their decisions.
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.
