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.
Where is he authorized to made such a decision. He job is to try cases - period. Each decision must refer back to the LAW, NOT previous court decisions, for to do so is to give un-elected jurists veto-power over Representative government.
The constitution authorizes him to make such decisions. The Constitution say's that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of what, exactly, the constitution means. That's the whole reason for the SCOTUS, to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. When they say representative government is acting unconstitutional, then representative government must adjust to the ruling.
That would be following the constitution.
Where is he authorized to made such a decision. He job is to try cases - period. Each decision must refer back to the LAW, NOT previous court decisions, for to do so is to give un-elected jurists veto-power over Representative government.
That's not true.
Judges don't try cases they decide them, in order to decide them they have to analyze and explain their reasoning. When they analyze and decide they are using a process known as Stare Decisis (the decision stands) developed in all common law nations such as the UK. Court decisions are law, when you try a case you find a statute, and then you find how it is interpreted. Such a practice creates a sort of consistency amongst judicial decisions. Where SCOTUS makes a decision it is binding on all, where your State Supreme Court makes a decision its holding and reasoning is binding within your state, where the 9th Cir. makes a decision it is binding to all lower District Courts w/n the Circuit etc etc...
An issue with codification which you seem to be alluding to is that it doesnt allow for substantive justice in certain scenarios where common law practices are modified to fit justice. There is a question of whether we should hold fildelity to written codes or to justice.
I'm saying any attempt to deny the people the ability to keep and bear arms, or organize with those arms(define each of those words) is unconstitutional, be it law or amendment. You twist it how ever you wish to make it a circle. It ends at the tip of the crescent of, shall not be infringed.
As long as it didn't modify the meaning of People, right to, militia, keep, bear, arms, or shall not be infringed, we are good. Go for it. Amend away. LOL!! If idiots could fly, you guys would be jets.
First of all, we both happily agree that the 2A isn't going anywhere. We both are dedicated supporters of the 2A - it's just that one of us (me) actually respects and understands the COTUS and what the gift our forefathers left for us actually does and means.
Second, you cannot seem to grasp that yes, the text says "shall not be infringed", but does not say "immune from article V". One is a particular amendment, the other is a mechanism which covers ALL amendments as well as every other word in the COTUS.
The definition of infringed:
Quote:
infringe |inˈfrinj|
verb [ trans. ] actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
Article V does not "break the terms of a law". Article V is the mechanism put in place to make changes to the COTUS without breaking the law. Huge difference.
An infringement is what has been happening almost daily to the 2A throughout the land. It is every restriction to the 2A that doesn't follow article V. The ONLY real "do something!" solution for the anti's that would take our right to bear arms, without infringing, is article V, which they won't even touch because they know they would never be able to get the needed support to invoke the process.
I wish you'd learn how the COTUS works, your heart is in the right place. Your argument however, makes you and people who share your 2A sentiment look like idiots to any person with a decent 9th grade education. Like I said, you're the guy they trot out and point the finger at as an ignorant boob, and we all get painted with that brush thanks to arguments like the one you present.
First of all, we both happily agree that the 2A isn't going anywhere. We both are dedicated supporters of the 2A - it's just that one of us (me) actually respects and understands the COTUS and what the gift our forefathers left for us actually does and means.
Second, you cannot seem to grasp that yes, the text says "shall not be infringed", but does not say "immune from article V". One is a particular amendment, the other is a mechanism which covers ALL amendments as well as every other word in the COTUS.
The definition of infringed:
Article V does not "break the terms of a law". Article V is the mechanism put in place to make changes to the COTUS without breaking the law. Huge difference.
An infringement is what has been happening almost daily to the 2A throughout the land. It is every restriction to the 2A that doesn't follow article V. The ONLY real "do something!" solution for the anti's that would take our right to bear arms, without infringing, is article V, which they won't even touch because they know they would never be able to get the needed support to invoke the process.
I wish you'd learn how the COTUS works, your heart is in the right place. Your argument however, makes you and people who share your 2A sentiment look like idiots to any person with a decent 9th grade education. Like I said, you're the guy they trot out and point the finger at as an ignorant boob, and we all get painted with that brush thanks to arguments like the one you present.
Every time you say COTUS I think of coitus. One or both of us are getting ****ed.
First of all, we both happily agree that the 2A isn't going anywhere. We both are dedicated supporters of the 2A - it's just that one of us (me) actually respects and understands the COTUS and what the gift our forefathers left for us actually does and means.
Second, you cannot seem to grasp that yes, the text says "shall not be infringed", but does not say "immune from article V". One is a particular amendment, the other is a mechanism which covers ALL amendments as well as every other word in the COTUS.
The definition of infringed:
Article V does not "break the terms of a law". Article V is the mechanism put in place to make changes to the COTUS without breaking the law. Huge difference.
An infringement is what has been happening almost daily to the 2A throughout the land. It is every restriction to the 2A that doesn't follow article V. The ONLY real "do something!" solution for the anti's that would take our right to bear arms, without infringing, is article V, which they won't even touch because they know they would never be able to get the needed support to invoke the process.
I wish you'd learn how the COTUS works, your heart is in the right place. Your argument however, makes you and people who share your 2A sentiment look like idiots to any person with a decent 9th grade education. Like I said, you're the guy they trot out and point the finger at as an ignorant boob, and we all get painted with that brush thanks to arguments like the one you present.
Any amendment that infringes upon the 2nd amendment, would be by the very wording of the 2nd amendment, unconstitutional.
Shall not infringe is very powerful wording. That is impossible to get around. Without breaking the Constitution.
Firearms are a security blanket. Their purpose is to provide psychological comfort in times when fear and hysteria are perpetuated by the mainstream media, the NRA or the government. There is money to be made when people's level of death anxiety is heightened.
Every issue that sweeps America ties back to one thing. That "thing" is monetary greed.
Firearms are a security blanket. Their purpose is to provide psychological comfort in times when fear and hysteria are perpetuated by the mainstream media, the NRA or the government. There is money to be made when people's level of death anxiety is heightened.
Every issue that sweeps America ties back to one thing. That "thing" is monetary greed.
How in the heck does buying ammunition and investing in firearms "feed greed"? Are you insane?
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.
