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.
Per title question - depends on which of the two groups you fall into: individualist or collectivist.
I use that binary choice instead of non-statist and statist because we are talking about government either way, so non-statists would argue that neither a piece of paper nor some tyrants "interpreting" that paper have any power over the natural rights of the individual. But I digress...
The individualist reads the Constitution in a much more literal 18th century sense, since that is how the document was created and meant to be read. The Founders were creating the most individual friendly government ever codified into any sort of framework. The 9th and 10th Amendments are the "how to read this individual friendly document" amendments. They tell you to assume natural individual rights exist even if they aren't listed and further that if if it isn't exactly, specifically spelled out as power for the federal government, then the government doesn't have that power.
The individualist held sway for a good solid 8 years before the collectivists took over with Marbury v Madison. That was when this whole "who has supreme authority to interpret this document in ways that favor collective" theory got its precedent. This precedent was used very slowly and surely until the early 20th century, and then Wilson started the "living constitution" ball rolling down the hill, and the next 100 years became the era of the Supreme Court being the most powerful of the 3 branches of government, routinely "interpreting" things in favor of the collective.
If you are an individualist in your heart, then the pre-Marbury way of doing things is your jam. If you are part of the much larger, much more powerful and utterly gullible population of collectivists, then you are cool with Leviathan rewriting the rules as and whenever they see fit. And like religions and denominational interpretations of various scriptures and sutras, you'll never find agreement between groups that possess such fundamentally and passionately opposed thinking.
Look, someone who doesn't know anything telling me how the government works.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
Tell me where in the Constitution it says anything about "final arbiter". It isn't there. Do you know what Marbury v. Madison is?
If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, and a court (even the Supreme Court) says another, which one should we obey?
Keep in mind that the Constitution flatly states that it will be the Supreme Law of the Land (Article 6). Not some court.
And it further states that all judges are required to obey and uphold the Constitution. Not the other way around.
So much for leftist fanatics' desperate attempts to use "interpretation" to pretend the Constitution means something other than what it says. Or pretend it gives government powers it doesn't give.
In Reality? Federal Courts can and will outright ignore the 2nd Amendment whenever they see fit, and any anti-weapon laws they give their stamp of approval to dictates our reality.
If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, and a court (even the Supreme Court) says another, which one should we obey?
Keep in mind that the Constitution flatly states that it will be the Supreme Law of the Land (Article 6). Not some court.
And it further states that all judges are required to obey and uphold the Constitution. Not the other way around.
So much for leftist fanatics' desperate attempts to use "interpretation" to pretend the Constitution means something other than what it says. Or pretend it gives government powers it doesn't give.
Interesting. In 1963 the Supreme Court used the Letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Church so as to interpret the u.s. Constitution in the Separation of Church and State and prayers in government schools. Even the Supreme Court needs help interpreting the Constitution.
If a State is having an issue, then they take it to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court then decides if the issue warrants being heard or not. Until then the States have jurisdiction over the people rights, within the State in laws not covered Federally.
"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."
States can regulate the law, but they can not over turn the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
So the Supreme Court was using the part of the Constitution that says "The Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land except for letters from Thomas Jefferson, which can change or amend it"?
Quote:
The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."
What's an "aspirational Second Amendment"? And a "judicial Second Amendment"? Are they different from the Second Amendment that's in the Constitution?
Whichever is the one that supports the 10th Amendment, that would be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
So the Supreme Court was using the part of the Constitution that says "The Constitution shall be the Supreme Law of the Land except for letters from Thomas Jefferson, which can change or amend it"?
I didn't say that, I said they used the 'Letter' as as to interpret the Constitution in regards to prayer in public education. Look it up, tell me I'm wrong, until then, that's it.
And as far as States go, they can regulate guns within their State, they just can't over turn the Supreme Court's ruling. But then of course you knew that right? How stuff works?
The constitution. Being complacent with tyranny is how the Nazis and communists came into power. Every authoritarian regime disarms its citizens.
Almost every country except the United States has already disarmed its citizens, and most of their citizens begged them to do it.
It was the democratic Weimar Republic that banned gun ownership in Germany, not Hitler. Hitler actually expanded gun-rights to people who weren't deemed dangerous(communists, anarchists, mentally-ill, criminals, and of course the Jews).
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
That's corruption, and is NOT what the "living document" concept means. You had it right - our Constitution has an amendment process.
Amendment != Living document theory. Not sure why you're spazzing out. He was correct. That doesn't mean he agrees with the living document theory, but many do, and it has been in effect for a hundred years.
Why not just write it in clear and precise wording so that we would hardly need a Supreme Court? Why all the vagueness? They should have included a term glossary.
The wording isn't vague at all. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only reason we pretend it is vague is because no one believes that that right should be unlimited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009
The power of The Constitution supersedes the opinions of a woke, liberal judge.
The wording isn't vague at all. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only reason we pretend it is vague is because no one believes that that right should be unlimited.
X for doubt.
Think about why everyone believes these rights shouldnt be unlimited...Why does the govt create super tough laws on owning machine guns...DUH...they are scared of the peasants having the same weapons their military does!
Majority of the public has been brainwashed to side with govt on this issue. (which is an incredible outcome imo!)
Almost every country except the United States has already disarmed its citizens, and most of their citizens begged them to do it.
It was the democratic Weimar Republic that banned gun ownership in Germany, not Hitler. Hitler actually expanded gun-rights to people who weren't deemed dangerous(communists, anarchists, mentally-ill, criminals, and of course the Jews).
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-28-2021 at 10:59 AM..
Reason: replaced video with the correct one
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.
