In Thomas’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, he explicitly says that Lawrence v. Texas (which decriminalized gay sex) and Obergefell v. Hodges were wrongly decided and should be overturned. Lumpy seems to be unaware of exactly how hostile the American right is to homosexuality, if he thinks Burger’s sentiment would be surprising or shocking coming from a contemporary jurist. Burger didn’t say anything Samuel Alito didn’t write directly into his dissent on Obergefell.
@Miller Oh I’m very aware of how much conservatives still hate homosexuality. And I didn’t mean that it would be surprising or shocking (except perhaps in audacity) if a conservative, even one on the bench, were to mirror Burger’s words. I meant the hue and cry that would go up if a conservative court dared to. And in fact the hue and cry over Roe is getting considerable.
Interesting. When did people start associating the 2nd Amendment with preventing tyranny?
I’m guessing around the first time some election didn’t produce an outcome they agreed with.
Just to throw this into the pile, I’ve read one other interpretation of the Second Amendment that I find interesting (if not persuasive). It’s that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of people to serve in the military.
The author made the argument that there have historically been groups who were/are marginalized in American politics: black people, women, gays, American Indians, immigrants, trans people, etc. And he noted that many of these same groups were also restricted in how they could serve in the armed forces. He noted there is a historical linkage between serving in the military and enjoying full citizenship.
So his argument was that the Second Amendment said that all Americans had the right to join and serve in the armed forces. And that nobody could be barred from serving on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation. And that people in potentially marginalized groups would be able to parlay this right into other rights.
About the time the constitution was being debated for ratification. Because the commentators at the time specifically said so. Particularly, the Anti-Federalists insisted that if the federal government was to have co-authority with the states to call up the militia, that there be an amendment added to prevent the Fed from co-opting and neutralizing the militia.
That’s retarded. Absolutely no one in late-eighteenth century America thought that race or gender, much less sexual orientation, were protected against discrimination.
I said I didn’t find the argument persuasive. Although I used better language to do it.
I will note however that James Madison had some thoughts along these lines. When he discussed the Bill of Rights, he noted comparisons to the English Declaration of Rights but declared the American version was better. And one of the reasons he gave for this was that the English Declaration of Rights only guaranteed the right of Protestants to bear arms. Madison made the connection that the lessened political rights of Catholic Englishmen was connected to their lessened right to bear arms.
No dig against you Little_Nemo; but as to the person positing this theory- do they have NO historical awareness at all?
Note that while the word “retarded” was once an acceptable medical term, these days the word is considered to be both outdated and offensive. Please avoid using it here on the SDMB.
And yet, nowadays, it’s commonplace for the federal government to co-opt and neutralize the militia, and nobody says a thing about it.
Except for pro-gun people who look back and, in their opinion, see how far we’ve fallen. It didn’t happen in a generation or even a century, but a succession of new normals gradually brought it about. Hence “slippery slope”, "frog in boiling water’, etc.; and the militancy and revanchism of pro-gun people opposing further restrictions and seeking a restoration of what was.
Of course those in favor of gun control call this progress or modernization. Hence the divide on the subject.
You have to distinguish between the principle and the application of that principle.
It’s like the principle “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson espoused the principle but didn’t apply it to the slaves around him. But other people would take Jefferson’s principle and apply it in a way Jefferson had not.
The same is arguably true about Madison’s views. It’s documented that Madison recognized that allowing only Protestants to own firearms was discriminatory to Catholics. So he was stating the principle even if he never applied it to black people or women or gays.