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.
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.
Quote to me exactly what language in the Constitution says that. People assume it is true, but it is not. They are there to try cases, not create a whole new body of law that SUPERCEDES Representative Democracy.
Let that sink in. Justices, appointed FOR LIFE, accountable to nobody have taken upon themselves, without Constitutional authorization, the role of final arbiter and a power higher than the people's elected reps. It is INSANE.
Their power extends to all Cases arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
...under the Constitution and the laws of the United States... (no mention of case "law", but direct reference to the Constiution and Laws. Basing a decision on a previous case, (and not the Constiution and Laws) is beyond their power.
Here is the entire power of the Federal Courts as Granted by the Constitution
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The power you say is granted to them by the Constitution isn't there. They carved it out and took it for themselves to further empower the courts beyond that granted by the USC.
Read the words, over and over, if necessary, and see if what you say is there is actually there. It isn't.
They also created the test of "standing" where no law can be challenged in court except by somebody be charged with a crime under that law. They made that up too.
Nope. That would be an infringement of the very amendment that says it shall not be infringed.
It is the only amendment, that can never be altered, or eliminated, by the very wording in the amendment.
Never say "never"!
The 18th Amendment absolutely "prohibited" the sale of booze. How'd that work out?
That would be an infringement of the 2nd amendment, and it shall not be infringed.
I swear, words have meaning in all law documents. Why is it, no one sees Shall not be infringed. Meaning any law and any amendment is an infringement.
Define, shall not be infringed, for the courts. I see no "except" in a clause. Do you? Yet you want to place one there where it does not exist.
Words have meaning and written words hold more meaning than those spoken.
Let me try to help you understand using your own "logic".
Yes, words have meaning in all law documents. Many contracts include clauses that state something to the effect that:
"Party A shall / shall not blah blah blah...".
Such words in such legal documents create an obligation, either affirmative or negative, on Party A.
You with me?
OK.
Now, despite the fact that the clause stating "Party A shall / shall not blah blah blah..." exists in the text of the contract, Party A and Party B may in fact later decide that they wish to alter or completely delete said clause from their contract, and they may do so by way of an amendment.
See?
The Constitution is a contract between and among the several States and the Federal Government and may be amended by the two means provided at Article V of the Constitution.
The "Well regulated militia" is a responsibility of the individual States. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the citizens individual right. The "shall not be infringed" part is a message to the federal government. So Obama's Executive Order, or any other federal law prohibiting small arms in the hands of law abiding citizens is Unconstitutional. Regulation is up to the States. Read the X Amendment. End of Story.
The "Well regulated militia" is a responsibility of the individual States. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the citizens individual right. The "shall not be infringed" part is a message to the federal government. So Obama's Executive Order, or any other federal law prohibiting small arms in the hands of law abiding citizens is Unconstitutional. Regulation is up to the States. Read the X Amendment. End of Story.
But Obama is not imposing an executive order prohibiting 'small arms in the hands of law abiding citizens'. The executive order is a directive to ATF to require people who meet the following criteria and sell guns online or at gun shows to obtain a dealers license and conduct background checks on purchasers, just like every other licensed dealer already does:
"officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to “clarify” who would be considered a regulated dealer — taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging."
Now, take a deep breath and tell me how that is impinging on your 2A rights...I'll be waiting.
But Obama is not imposing an executive order prohibiting 'small arms in the hands of law abiding citizens'. The executive order is a directive to ATF to require people who meet the following criteria and sell guns online or at gun shows to obtain a dealers license and conduct background checks on purchasers, just like every other licensed dealer already does:
"officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to “clarify” who would be considered a regulated dealer — taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging."
Now, take a deep breath and tell me how that is impinging on your 2A rights...I'll be waiting.
Dear Leader is directly subverting the power of Congress unconstitutionally. That's how it's impinging on my 2nd Ammendment rights.
Three times the Congress has denied expanding the definiton of a gun dealer.
so Dear Leader the Omnipotent decided to illegally override them by issuing this EO.
Dear Leader is directly subverting the power of Congress unconstitutionally. That's how it's impinging on my 2nd Ammendment rights. Three times the Congress has denied expanding the definiton of a gun dealer. so Dear Leader the Omnipotent decided to illegally override them by issuing this EO.
My husband and I have guns, we are not 'anti-gun' but what I am opposed to is the nonsense that takes place at the Reno gun shows where the majority of sellers are not licensed but are moving more guns than licensed dealers are. You should go there sometime and see the characters buying guns from the sellers without a license, hell they even ask the seller if they do background checks and if the answer is 'yes' they move on to the next table. That is wrong and needs to stop, it's too bad that the Republicans in Congress are so afraid of the NRA that they won't even consider legislation that would stop this, but that's not a reason to do nothing about it. It does NOT keep you from owning a gun, it does not make it harder for you to buy a gun, it does not restrict you from selling a gun to your neighbor- but it might keep a guy with prison tats from walking into the Reno gun show and walking out with a legally purchased arsenal.
But Obama is not imposing an executive order prohibiting 'small arms in the hands of law abiding citizens'. The executive order is a directive to ATF to require people who meet the following criteria and sell guns online or at gun shows to obtain a dealers license and conduct background checks on purchasers, just like every other licensed dealer already does:
"officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will begin contacting gun sellers to let them know of new standards to “clarify” who would be considered a regulated dealer — taking into account factors such as whether someone has a business card, uses a website or sells guns in their original packaging."
Now, take a deep breath and tell me how that is impinging on your 2A rights...I'll be waiting.
First off, with regards to the Executive Order, the principal thrust of the president’s orders addresses the requirement for background checks in occasional sales and the requirement that occasional sellers become federal licensees and the imposition of reporting upon physicians. Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses, and from conducting background checks. That's what makes it unconstitutional, he is negating Congressional law.
Secondly, this administration supported a Second Amendment ban on thousands of US citizens who end up on a terror watch list, with out due process, clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights
And lastly this administration has supported an "assault" weapon ban on several occasions, which demonstrates to me that he does not respect the Second Amendment or care for it's original intent.
You and I both know, Obama and his party platform are no friends of the Second Amendment.
First off, with regards to the Executive Order, the principal thrust of the president’s orders addresses the requirement for background checks in occasional sales and the requirement that occasional sellers become federal licensees and the imposition of reporting upon physicians. Congress has expressly removed occasional sales (sales not made by full-time dealers) from the obligation of obtaining federal licenses and from conducting background checks. That's what makes it unconstitutional.
Secondly, this administration supported a Second Amendment ban on thousands of US citizens who end up on a terror watch list, with out due process, clearly in violation of the Bill of Rights
And lastly this administration has supported an "assault" weapon ban on several occasions, which demonstrates to me that he does not respect the Second Amendment or care for it's original intent.
Can I exhale now
The original intent was to allow semi-automatic weapons? I presume the founders could foresee over 100 years into the future to see that such a thing would exist and that we should protect the rights to have those?
The original intent was to allow semi-automatic weapons?
Was the original intent of the First Amendment to allow internet porn?
Yes in fact it was. The people should be able to defend their homes, properties, and their State by using equal means.
From the Heller Ruling
Quote:
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”.
And btw, a semi automatic weapon only means you can shoot a bullet as many times as you pull the trigger. It's not fully automatic.
Quote:
I presume the founders could foresee over 100 years into the future to see that such a thing would exist and that we should protect the rights to have those?
You don't like that particular Bill of Right, get on a campaign to repeal. Until then live with it.
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.
It's not fully automatic. 
