Justice Thomas asks Supreme Court to overturn ‘demonstrably erroneous decisions’

[Bill Cipher]

It is exactly true and if you were to read some actual original source history you would find that the founders envisioned the Court to be a VERY boring place to work.

It is not true in the naive sense that you seem to think it is. Or do you, too, believe that the second amendment means that the government cannot make it illegal for a convicted violent felon to own a machine gun or a grenade launcher?

[txradioguy]

It is not true in the naive sense that you seem to think it is. Or do you, too, believe that the second amendment means that the government cannot make it illegal for a convicted violent felon to own a machine gun or a grenade launcher?

Federalist #78

[txradioguy]

Actually, you do.  And more to the point, you need to start trying to understand it.  Something you most clearly do not.

Federalist #78

[Smokin Joe]

So you would agree, then, that the Constitution prohibits the government from passing a law that makes it illegal for a convicted violent felon to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher.  Got it.

Actually, by the time a Felon is convicted, they have had their day in court: "Due Process" and been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point the 5th Amendment requirement for due process is fulfilled, and they can  ..."be deprived of life, liberty, or property...".

[skeeter]

Federalist #78

"It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

[txradioguy]

"It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."

And that's where the line has been crossed.  Judging has usurped the legislative and the executive.  They were designed to be the weakest branch and they're now...thanks to the left...the most powerful.

[skeeter]

And that's where the line has been crossed.  Judging has usurped the legislative and the executive.  They were designed to be the weakest branch and they're now...thanks to the left...the most powerful.

Sure seems that way. The only way the left has made it as far as they have is by seeking means alternate to the ballot box.

[Bigun]

Considering that most "ambiguities" are the result of semantic distortions produced by attorneys, when most of the Constitution is actually pretty clear to people who do not engage in such RCH splitting and twisting to push their agenda (or that of their clients),it isn't hard to see how we have ended up with the mess we have.

There are, however, logical distortions which exist, even within the semantically distorted framework of the Courts.

In Miller, the judges allowed the lower court ruling that Miller was guilty of a violation of the NFA to stand, despite their interpretation of the 2nd being that it preserved only the right to keep and bear weapons useful in a military context.

Short barreled shotguns had been in use as trench weapons by the US military in the First World War, and, by that train of logic, should have been included in those weapons left uninfringed, along with any weapon used as a weapon of war.

The lack of knowledge by the justices that shotguns were, in fact, a useful militia weapon (still deployed today, were in Vietnam, and in conflicts prior), led to a ruling that would be erroneous in even that limited context.

A broader interpretation of the RKBA (the correct one) would have simply thrown the NFA out as an unconstitutional infringement, and successive legislation limiting the Rights of the People would have fallen to the gavel as well, if even considered by Congress.

Reading the writings of the Founders on the Standing Army, the role of citizens in keeping that Army "well regulated", would indicate that that Right of the People should be broadly interpreted, only limited through restrictions placed on those who have committed a serious crime (through due process of having been found guilty of that crime).

Most modern lawyers have been thoroughly brain washed to believe crap such as @Jazzhead and @Bill Cipher continually spew and, because they are officers of the court, they unfortunately have the ability to make much of it so. 

The founders would be rolling over in their graves if they could see what the courts have become today.

[Bill Cipher]

Actually, by the time a Felon is convicted, they have had their day in court: "Due Process" and been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. At that point the 5th Amendment requirement for due process is fulfilled, and they can  ..."be deprived of life, liberty, or property...".

Ahh, so “shall not be infringed” doesn’t actually mean shall not be infringed.  You have to interpret the Constitution to find that limit. 

Thank you for playing. 

[Jazzhead]

Most modern lawyers have been thoroughly brain washed to believe crap such as @Jazzhead and @Bill Cipher continually spew and, because they are officers of the court, they unfortunately have the ability to make much of it so. 

The founders would be rolling over in their graves if they could see what the courts have become today.

Don't blame me.   It was that "crap" Justice Scalia that wrote that the individual right to own a gun is subject to reasonable regulation.   

[Bill Cipher]

Don't blame me.   It was that "crap" Justice Scalia that wrote that the individual right to own a gun is subject to reasonable regulation.   

Good point. 

[Bigun]

Don't blame me.   It was that "crap" Justice Scalia that wrote that the individual right to own a gun is subject to reasonable regulation.   

I don't blame you! I blame the ones who did the brainwashing.

[Bill Cipher]

I don't blame you! I blame the ones who did the brainwashing.

So now you’re saying that Scalia was brainwashed?!?

[TomSea]

Don't blame me.   It was that "crap" Justice Scalia that wrote that the individual right to own a gun is subject to reasonable regulation.   

Scalia got off on a tangent about the right to own shoulder to air missile launchers.  I mean, he was talking about limits on the 2nd amendment and I don't know if he even came down on that. I'd be careful in talking about what Scalia said about limiting the 2nd amendment.

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2012/07/30/a-stinger-for-antonin

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[Bill Cipher]

Scalia got off on a tangent about the right to own shoulder to air missile launchers.  I mean, he was talking about limits on the 2nd amendment and I don't know if he even came down on that. I'd be careful in talking about what Scalia said about limiting the 2nd amendment.

https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2012/07/30/a-stinger-for-antonin

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

He was pretty clear about it. 

Or do you, too, subscribe to the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from making it illegal for a violent convicted felon to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher?

[TomSea]

He was pretty clear about it. 

Or do you, too, subscribe to the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from making it illegal for a violent convicted felon to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher?

Ok, so violent felons can not own guns, it may not be in the Constitution exactly but that sounds reasonable.

[thackney]

He was pretty clear about it. 

Or do you, too, subscribe to the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from making it illegal for a violent convicted felon to own a machine gun, or a grenade launcher?

You keep equating "the people" with a convicted felon.  They do not have the same rights.  The convicted felon has already gone through due process to limit his rights.  It is not the same a "the people" that have committed no crime.

[Bill Cipher]

Ok, so violent felons can not own guns, it may not be in the Constitution exactly but that sounds reasonable.

So then you agree that “shall not be infringed” does not literally mean what it says, but must be interpreted in light of other provisions in the Constitution and other applicable legal principles, which may not be expressly stated in the Constitution in a way that would allow for mechanical application. 

[Bill Cipher]

You keep equating "the people" with a convicted felon.  They do not have the same rights.  The convicted felon has already gone through due process to limit his rights.  It is not the same a "the people" that have committed no crime.

No, I don’t.  I am taking the words as they are literally set forth, and am pointing out the logical conclusions one must necessarily accept if one thinks that the words must be applied literally, mechanically, without interpretation, and in isolation.  The Second Amendment is not, by its terms or by necessary implication, limited only to individuals who have never been convicted of a crime; therefore, if the words apply literally in a mechanical way, they necessarily permit violent convicted felons to possess whatever armament they desire. 

[TomSea]

So then you agree that “shall not be infringed” does not literally mean what it says, but must be interpreted in light of other provisions in the Constitution and other applicable legal principles, which may not be expressly stated in the Constitution in a way that would allow for mechanical application.

This appears to be a question of the right of states to legislate guns. That, they do already.

[Smokin Joe]

Ahh, so “shall not be infringed” doesn’t actually mean shall not be infringed.  You have to interpret the Constitution to find that limit. 

Thank you for playing.

I guess you didn't get it. All your rights except those attached to the right to appeal can be 'infringed' and your life, property, etc., forfeit if you have been convicted of a Felony, depending on the crime, after conviction.

The 5th only guarantees the rights of the accused (and those who have not been accused of any crime).

For those who have not been accused nor convicted of a crime, the language of the 2nd is plain enough. SHALL NOT be infringed.

Thanks for playing your own self.

[Smokin Joe]

So then you agree that “shall not be infringed” does not literally mean what it says, but must be interpreted in light of other provisions in the Constitution and other applicable legal principles, which may not be expressly stated in the Constitution in a way that would allow for mechanical application.

Again, you ignore the punishment for being a convicted Felon. That includes some loss of rights. See my previous post.

[Bill Cipher]

Again, you ignore the punishment for being a convicted Felon. That includes some loss of rights. See my previous post.

Didn’t ignore it at all.  Your post proved my point:  “shall not be infringed” is not absolute and is not capable of mechanical application without interpretation and resort to resources that lie outside the four corners of the Constitution itself. 

Thank you for proving my point. 

[Smokin Joe]

Didn’t ignore it at all.  Your post proved my point:  “shall not be infringed” is not absolute and is not capable of mechanical application without interpretation and resort to resources that lie outside the four corners of the Constitution itself. 

Thank you for proving my point.

But I didn't, except in your delusions. One who has been duly convicted of a serious crime forfeits a number of rights.

If they have forfeited the right, by virtue of that conviction, there is no right to be infringed.

Only those who possess their full Rights can have a Right they have not forfeited through their actions infringed.

I have not proven your point, for those in full possession of their Rights, there is to be no infringement of the Right.
For those who have forfeited the Right, there is no Right to be infringed; that Liberty (and property) only taken from them after being duly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime (Felony).

[Cyber Liberty]

But I didn't, except in your delusions. One who has been duly convicted of a serious crime forfeits a number of rights.

If they have forfeited the right, by virtue of that conviction, there is no right to be infringed.

Only those who possess their full Rights can have a Right they have not forfeited through their actions infringed.

I have not proven your point, for those in full possession of their Rights, there is to be no infringement of the Right.
For those who have forfeited the Right, there is no Right to be infringed; that Liberty (and property) only taken from them after being duly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime (Felony).

I'm hearing violent felons should have all the rights, like voting.  Sounds like Bernie.