The reference was to Antonin Scalia.
I am arguing obverse of what you say there . . . I argue that the the 2nd Amendment stands entirely on the inviolate, perpetual existence of the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
You are the one arguing that the 2nd Amendment is a red-headed step child that has no hereditary linkage to the rest of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Your argument is that the 2ndA was nothing but a Trojan Horse, sneaking in federal powers when they were supposed to be prohibited, to dictate to the states and the people just who shall be the approved arms bearers, and to override any state’s bill of rights provision holding out their individual citizens as possessing a right to keep and bear arms.
SMH. . . No, I’m saying that the left’s hostility for the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment will furnish the legal premise to argue that the penumbral rights theory is a myth because a right that is a link in the “rational continuum” of liberty the Bill of Rights represents, can be cut out . . . Thus the premise for penumbral rights was never true.
Penumbral rights theory demands the “rational continuum” remain inviolate and pristine.
Which can be said for ***any ***person’s vote predicated on any politician’s position on any public policy that the voter believes is of primary importance to them. Have you ever voted for a candidate that you agreed with on everything?
.
The current interpretation of the 2nd (DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago, Caetano v. Massachusetts) places it right in the fold of the other enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights. To reverse that would take a mutation of law and a reworking of nearly 200 years of SCOTUS explanations on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment.
Well, you could read it with the correct fundamental understanding, that the right to arms isn’t granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment so the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
You could try that.
True, 9-0 on the question of if the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.
I sure wish more anti’s recognized that fact going into the debate. :rolleyes:
The Court “recognized” the right to “bear arms for lawful purpose” of two former slaves, then citizens, for self defense in public, from the KKK / Night Riders, in 1873 Louisiana, a state that had no state militia, it having been disbanded by Congress.
Even if there was a Louisiana state militia, these two citizens would have been forbidden to enroll by federal law since they were not White.
So, given the indisputable facts of Cruikshank – the first time the Court looked at the right to arms of citizens – please explain your statement.
[spoiler]a) The quote “bear arms for lawful purpose” was from the indictment the Court was examining, of Cruikshank et al. The facts of incident that predicated the case are a sad part of US history called the Colfax Massacre.
b) That the Court did not enforce the 14th Amendment or the Enforcement Act in Cruikshank, was not because the Court held the two lynched former slaves did not have a federally recognized right to keep and bear arms, the right was recognized. The case was decided on the single point that the scumbags who killed them were private citizens, not state actors.
The same justification was used to dismiss all claims of rights violation, those being (again, SCOTUS quoting the indictment):
“[T]heir respective free exercise and enjoyment of their lawful right and privilege to peaceably assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the said United States for a peaceable and lawful purpose.'”
The right to “bear arms for a lawful purpose.”
The right to be free from depravation, “of their respective several lives and liberty of person, without due process of law.”
The right of, “free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property’ enjoyed by white citizens.”
To be free “in the exercise and enjoyment of the rights, privileges, immunities, and protection granted and secured to them respectively as citizens of the said United States, and as citizens of the said State of Louisiana, by reason of and for and on account of the race and color’ of the said persons.”
The right of, “the free exercise and enjoyment of the several and respective right and privilege to vote at any election to be thereafter by law had and held by the people in and of the said State of Louisiana.”
To not be, “put in great fear of bodily harm, injure, and oppress’ the same persons, ‘because and for the reason’ that, having the right to vote, they had voted.”
And finally, all the rights listed in the Constitution; “in their several and respective free exercise and enjoyment of every, each, all, and singular and several rights and privileges granted and secured’ to them 'by the constitution and laws of the United States.”
[/spoiler]
No. I’m arguing that the 2nd A has outlived its usefulness and should be dumped into the dustbin of history. Because it does not live up to it’s intended purpose and because it’s purpose has been entirely co-opted by those who either don’t give a damn about its original intent or are delusional in that it still serves its original intent.
I dismiss your boogeyman legal premise thus.
I’m not a single issue voter. I tend to vote for the person with whom I agree with on a large majority of key issues. I especially avoid casting my vote for a candidates who have shown themselves to be incompetent, bigoted, pathological liars.
Ok, well that’s not a legal argument, that’s just emotion and wishcasting.
I didn’t expect you to get it.
In a normal year that works great. Some years when faced with someone who advocates nothing you support and everything you oppose your choices are very limited. In 2016 such was the case and a when someone says they will nominate constitutionalists for the federal judiciary that was good enough for me.
Besides, who the hell thought he could win? My vote for him is only condemnable now because he won, if Hillary won, you would only take note of it for ridicule.
So then you understand why I couldn’t vote for Hillary!
.
It had two purposes- to allow each state to have a militia so that the central government, with a small regular army couldn’t overpower them. Rightly or wrong, the USA has decided to be the Worlds Policeman with a very powerful standing army. So yeah, that part is gone.
The second part is to allow people to defend their own homes, just as the Supreme court and the Founders said. That part is still very viable.
It’s an observational argument, actually. There is no functioning “unorganized” citizen militia.
No. You didn’t expect me to agree.
It’s condemnable because:
- Trump is contemptable
- You don’t admit fault for helping elect him to power
- I ridicule it on its merit, regardless of outcome
I’m not interested in re-litigating her merits, or lack thereof. She had serious flaws, for sure. Not the least of which that she could not inspire sufficient numbers of democrats and independents to come out to vote for her. But despite that, she was a far more competent, experienced and serious candidate than Trump.
It doesn’t say anything about defending your own home. The Founders didn’t say that in 2A. That’s a rationalization that was created later.
True, becuase the Founders didnt like to put obvious things into the BoR, in fact there was almost not BoR as many Founders thought those rights were self-obvious. But if you read the debate and discussion and writings from the Convention, it is very clear they considered that using your gum to defend you home was obvious.
It’s insular navel gazing and unobservant. You dismiss the foundational principles, you ignore the framers contemporaneous writings, you handwave the determinations of SCOTUS and invent your conclusion.
The “unorganized” militia is nothing but the able-bodied men of the nation who are able to work in concert to secure their own liberty or the aid the civil authorities in time of need. It doesn’t need any legislation or regulation to exist, only to be formally called-up, organized, trained and deployed.
Today is a day when we pay our respects and honor some members of the “unorganized” militia . . . The passengers of Flight 93. Their actions are the epitome of the sense of civic duty and sacrifice for the greater good of “unorganized” militia – even though they took no oath of service to their state or the nation. Your denial spits on their service.
No, but I thought you *might *be capable of articulating a cogent oppositional legal argument.
You say that as if the right to arms is only what the 2nd Amendment “allows”.
Actually, you are 180 degrees wrong. This standard you want to hold the 2nd Amendment to, really only applies to the federal government and the enumerated powers. If the framers didn’t “say” IN THE BODY OF THE CONSTITUTION, that the feds can restrict the right to arms and not recognize home defense, then you would have an argument.
Pointing the the 2nd Amendment and saying, the right to defend your home ain’t in there, has no legitimacy.
I’m not a lawyer. We’re not in court. You were the one who made the absurd claim that reversal of 2A would lead to penumbral protection reversals of abortion and various other rights. Conveniently ignoring the fact that all those other rights were hard fought for, separate and apart from 2A. Conveniently forgetting the fact that you admitted to wanting more right leaning courts that would challenge/restrict rights like abortion and marriage equality. Conveniently dismissing that other democracies around the world honor rights and liberty without reliance on anything like 2A.
In summary, if it please the court, I call bullshit on your entire line of reasoning. Articulate enough for you?
Wow. I’m almost embarrassed for you, that you thought nothing of sinking so low as to use the anniversary of a national tragedy in such a transparently manipulative manner, in an attempt to further your bent agenda. If your previous posts didn’t quite say it clearly enough, this has certainly put all doubt to rest about the kind of person you really are. I’m done here.
Then why does the Constitution authorize the president to command the militia? I really can’t read the 2d Am. in any way intended to supersede that.
“…when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
So, when the State militia is called up to defend us in case of invasion, the Pres is CinC. Happened in war of 1812.
But, no limitation is placed on the circumstances under which the militia can be called into federal service. E.g., the New England states declare secession in protest of the War of 1812 (that was an actual thing), so Madison federalizes their militia and that’s that, all perfectly constitutional.
**Cruikshank: " The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution."
As I pointed out to Bone, I do think there is a right to self-defense and a right to keep and bear arms, so, in effect, I kinda agree with Cruikshank. You continue to cite Cruikshank, which, as you pointed out, was a racist decision based on bad intent, has been overrruled multiple times, and was decided decades before Miller. Miller is much more controlling on the issue than Cruikshank. But if you have the same views about the recognition of unenumerated rights, say the right to contraception or the right to same sex marriage, or the right to vote that you have for gun rights, I think we may agree more than disagree.
In a more recent example, from 1957, when Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the Guard to prevent desegregation of Little Rock Central HS, President Eisenhower federalized them and ordered them to facilitate it.