domer76 (12-11-2017)
This message is hidden because Abatis is on your ignore list.
domer76 (12-11-2017)
ThatOwlWoman (12-11-2017)
ThatOwlWoman (12-11-2017)
If there can be no infringements on the 2nd Amendment does that also mean 1st Amendment rights are absolute? "No law" seems as strong as "not be infringed."
To be clear, does the no infringement of the 2nd include prohibitions against felons owning weapons?
evince (12-12-2017)
And so according to your reasoning, from today's conference we now know SCOTUS "approves" of discrimination in the workplace based on one's sexual orientation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/11/u...bias-case.html
Damn, that really is a shame . . .
Do you really dispute that "infringements", in the context of the 2nd Amendment, meet the standard of "illegitimate" laws?
It is a term that is Lockean in origin and is often used to define extra-constitutional government actions.
Your displeasure is amusing; is it because you dislike the term in general or just my particular (correct) usage here?
I get that you disagree with me, isn't that a given? Your point -- whatever the fuck it is -- might be better made if you actually made an argument that I'm wrong.
No right is absolute in an ordered society.
Even the most important rights, rights that can not be transferred to the care and control of another person (un/inalienable rights) can be legitimately impacted. Life is taken, liberty is taken, property is taken . . . The legal disability of rights after due process is not an infringement.
Infringements are restrictions that are enacted and enforced without any constitutional authority and/or arbitrary restrictions enacted as blanket prohibitions or prior restraints.
That's the rub. The actual prohibition on the federal government is not how the words of the 2nd Amenmdent are defined. The real prohibition is that no power was ever granted to the federal government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
The federal laws that we have were first enacted under the tax code (National Firearms Act of 1934). All subsequent law has been written under the commerce clause, claiming that since firearms are a commodity / product that travels in interstate commerce, Congress can write nearly any laws it wants.
For decades when federal laws were challenged the government forgot about the commerce clause and claimed the power to restrict the personal arms of private citizens comes from Congress' power to regulate the militia.
I know, it's a brain twister . . .
SCOTUS in 2008 invalidated all that "collective right" bullshit; the hundreds of laws that were upheld / sustained over 60 years, using that bullshit legal reasoning will crumble when challenged.
Really, there are a shit-ton of laws that are illegitimate infringements; when it is time, a flood of challenges will happen and Constitution respecting judges and Justices will put the constitutional ship back on its keel.
It will be wonderful.
Gotta love Locke. Had to invent a philosophy that included a supernatural source of rights to justify revolt because life was such a shitbag at his time.
Not impressed with your bloviation. Just an inflated way of saying the same thing these other RW crybabies whine about when they don’t like a decision.
Squawk! Unelected, black-robed tyrants!
Squawk! Dred Scott!
Do you know there's a distinction between "emphasis you wanted to impart" and the actual "post"?
I'm gonna guess English isn't your primary language.
Well, if that's the standard for supported argument I'm just going to say the Madison was talking about patents and copyrights.
And your personal opinion is of zero import or consequence.
Locke's political philosophy is what the Constitution is built upon.
And I'm certainly not impressed with your scatterbrained, incoherent ramblings that have nothing to do with my statements.
Case in point:
WTF are you muttering about?
Bookmarks