That is rather the point, isn’t it, of putting certain things in a written constitution at all? That changing those things should be much more difficult than changing the ordinary law?
Now, if you want to debate the value of having a written constitution at all . . . that would be a different thread.
Exactly. That’s the point I’ve been making. You put rights in the Constitution because you want them to be protected from majority rule. If you think a right should be subject to majority rule, you leave it out of the Constitution.
Can’t I say the same thing about abortions?
I agree that the Heller decision might have created the individual’s right to bear arms but I think it is clear that a right to bear arms existed pre-Heller at least for the states.
Let’s leave this 'un out, then.
I’m not sure I completely understand this sentence? Care to clarify?
Meanwhile, Heller may already have become a dead letter:
New York Gun Limits Intact as High Court Rejects Appeal
We don’t know for sure why the Supremes decliined to rule on New York City’s gun law, allowing its strong handgun restrictions to remain in effect. But all it takes is four votes to take up a case. Perhaps the four conservatives were afraid that they no longer had Kennedy’s swing vote.
Or they may be getting worried about Roberts. I think he’s making his move to have more influence over the court by establishing himself as an independent swing vote rather than a safe conservative vote.
Personally, if I were a Justice, I’d have voted to overturn Kachalsky v. Cacace. NY’s law (and other equivalent laws) appears clearly unconstitutional to me. People should not be required to show a reason why they want to own or carry a firearm.
How is Heller dead letter law? I can now legally own a gun and keep it in my home in NYC, DC or Berkeley.
I don’t see how the failure to grant cert is ever supposed to mean anything. Perhaps its the 4 liberal judges that didn’t want to risk another Heller decision on the right to bear arms issue. To be fair I see a difference between self defense while in the home and self defense while in public.
Frankly I had always thought of the second amendment just as a state right but I was proven wrong and it is now clear that the second amendment is also a personal right to effective self defense. I think that the constitution now provides both federal and state rights to arm their citizens as well as a personal right to keep and bear arms necessary for effective self defense.
Of course. We have a common-law constitution, for all the whinging of various parties about amendments.
I don’t think that is in dispute.
OK, so then when you said you get your right to bear arms from Heller, you meant the personal right. And you were not undermining the legitimacy of the personal right to bear arms. Right?
Insofar as a right defined by jurists appointed by politicians who wanted them to affirm that right is “legitimate.” Heller is a bad decision, but a popular one, unfortunately.
It was arrived at by the proper procedural means. It’s based on a reasonable reading of the text. And it’s generally supported by people. What’s the basis for saying it’s a bad decision?
Are you just referring to Heller? Because it appears you’re talking about the combined effects of Heller and McDonald.
One can’t look into the hearts of hundreds of legislators to know what their motives are. But, let’s say, as seems at least plausible, that the normal motive for passing a law is to win reelection. Is that ulterior?
As for “how sane they are,” I don’t think this is objectively measurable, even by a skilled therapist. But if someone is together enough to get elected to office, they probably aren’t psychotic.
I think XT was questioning how sane the laws were not how sane the legislators were.