close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

SCOTUS will need to rule on 2A... Again..

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by syntaxerrorsix, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,406
    126
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729


    Yeah, we need a progressive lib to make sure we get more conservative justices.

    I put this squarely on the shoulders of those that approve of the idea of the Incorporation Doctrine and those that feel that Marbury v Madison allowed SCOTUS to define our COTUS.

    Fools.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  2. Brucev

    Brucev

    9,189
    5
    Jul 19, 2009
    Jefferson rightly understood the problem of the sc claiming the power of judicial review. When Marshall tried to make it stick, Jackson told him where to shove it. Good man. Good decision. More power to men like him who refuse to allow unelected judges to make law, etc.
     


  3. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    41,619
    8,276
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Then who does decide what is constitutional and what is not? The Supreme Court are the only ones required to be lawyers and, compared to the executive branch and the legislative branch, easily the most trustworthy throughout our entire history.

    "Unelected" is probably the top reason they are the most trustworthy - after "the majority" the least able and trustworthy group in our government is, usually, "anybody elected by the majority."
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  4. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,406
    126
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    More importantly where do you think they derive the power to interpret the COTUS? It isn't in the COTUS. That would be an unlimited power of the Judicial branch. So much for checks and balances eh?
     
  5. syntaxerrorsix

    syntaxerrorsix Anti-Federalist CLM

    9,406
    126
    Oct 3, 2000
    Lakeland, FL.
    Truthfully I can read. This include the federalist papers and the like. It doesn't require an opinion. It requires competent people taking the available writings at face value and avoiding constructionalism.
     
  6. jakebrake

    jakebrake cracker

    7,923
    8
    Jan 11, 2011
    too close to philly

    and sadly, this was bound to happen. the scotus is the pit of vipers that we can do nothing about.
     
  7. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,346
    1,819
    Jul 12, 2007
    Exactly right. The whole reason for the Electoral College electing the President rather than voting direct for them, appointing Senators rather than electing them, and appointing SCOTUS judges for life was to form more checks and balances against mob rule, the tyranny of the majority.

    To insulate them from the hot passions of the unruly mob that is pure democracy. They purposely avoided a democracy and created a republic instead. The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches being coequal branches are not the only checks and balances they set up.

    Randy
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  8. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012

    In his writings Jefferson was quite clear that he was not in favor of a judiciary with the power of a "Supreme Court" that was not elected by the people. Unelected and not subject to reelection by the people he felt that they could, and would grow in power beyond being just the last Court of appeals, that includes appeals on Constitutional issues. he felt they would begin to legislate from the bench with impunity.
    He felt a system, where the judges would be appointed by politicians and confirmed by politicians, would become "political" with the people completely left out of the process and no readily available means of redress.
    The idea of anyone having that much power, without the blessing and at the will of the people was a danger.
     
  9. G29Reload

    G29Reload Tread Lightly

    13,286
    363
    Sep 28, 2009
    if he were going to be the originalist he is, in the days of the revolutionary war cannons were in private hands and pressed into service.

    So if I were going to go with a limit, its light arttillery.

    20mm
    40mm
    50bmg.

    and everything below it, including handgrenades. Which I understand ARE legal to purchase.

    So long as you get the 200 tax stamp.

    Too bad they're only good for one use. :whistling:
     
  10. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012

    In my State they aren't covered by my CWP .
     
  11. CAcop

    CAcop

    19,710
    2,335
    Jul 21, 2002
    California
    File this under "Well, duh."

    There are time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech. There are exceptions to the fourth amendment and warrant requirements. Cruel and unusual punishment is an every evolving concept. Hell, Miranda warnings alone eat up a lot of their time even though the need to read them is written no where in the constitution. Like it or not the consitution can only be a guide as the world changes. Case law, stacked up over the centuries, is an even bigger guide.

    Let's face it the Supremes are there to be the umpire. If the Executive and Legisative branhes get out of line they call them out on it. They don't have an army or police force to enforce it. Their only real authority is their decorum. Elected judges would be exactly like the clowns in office in DC. They would be clowns in a three ring circus.
     
  12. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    4,116
    1
    Dec 21, 1998
    Louisiana
    This is a re-post but you post begs for truth and reason.

    Never forget, the Supreme Court/Government is not the ruler of The People. The People are the rulers of the Supreme Court/Government. Funny how "they" keep telling us otherwise isn't it.

    Frightened tyrants have always tried to regulate arms... even in this country.That's why the founders wrote the Second. Just because the "sheriff" says you can't have guns in town doesn't make it legal. We were all created with certain unalienable rights. The first of which is life. No man has the "right" to prevent one from defending that right. Criminals carry weapons. Its only right that honorable men should too.

    The founders wanted The People to have the means to protect/defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Only a tyrannical government would try to keep the same arms carried by police and military out of the hands of The People. Scalia seems to have forgotten that. Hopefully its just a momentary laps.
     
  13. Dupe. :winkie:
    ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

    Or one can simply vote for Obama (or vote 3rd party, or not vote at all) and let him stick one or more Kagan/Sotomayor on the bench...

    Lest some forget, Sotomayor LIED about her views on 2A during her confirmation hearing. She claimed that 2A was settled law, then promptly votes against 2A (and the Bill of Rights) by decenting in the Chicago case.
     
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  14. JohnnyReb

    JohnnyReb Lifetime Member

    4,073
    92
    Sep 20, 2004
    FEMA REGION III
    Congress is vastly more important. They can block liberal appointments. I could care less about romney vs obama. I am concerned about congress though. As long as true conservatives occupy congressional seats, we have nothing to fear.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  15. Agree that getting real conservatives into Congress is vastly more important. However Congress does not initially select the Supreme Court Justices, the President does. Congress simply gives the thumbs up or thumbs down to who ever the President selects.

    Which is why having someone in the Oval Office who won't go looking for and then selects the most far left people they can find for Supreme Court Justice is at least a little bit important.
    :dunno:
     
  16. GAFinch

    GAFinch

    5,912
    28
    Feb 23, 2009
    Georgia
    Cannons were legal back then, but there was a defined difference between arms (handguns and long guns) and ordnance (cannons, grenades, etc). The 2A only mentions arms.
     
  17. JohnnyReb

    JohnnyReb Lifetime Member

    4,073
    92
    Sep 20, 2004
    FEMA REGION III
    Let him select liberals. Congress needs to confirm them. That means he will have to compromise.

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  18. countrygun

    countrygun

    17,069
    17
    Mar 9, 2012
    I think somewhere in his writings Jefferson suggested that the court be nominated and confirmed by the process we have, but that there be, after a period of time, a reconfirmation by popular vote. A "vote of confidence" if you will.

    Knowing the normal amount of apathy present in human nature it would probably take a record of noticably incorrect decisions to garner a "no confidence vote"

    Of course one must also take in to account that the life expectancy was considerably shorter in the time that the SCOTUS system was set down.

    Jefferson struggled with the need to avoid the vaugeries of politics, the need for consistency, the fear of a branch of Government not responsive to the people, and the need to insure stability for the future of the Country. He had no intention of the SCOTUS being the wise old men (in his time) that are unelected, who sit cloistered in an ivory tower deciding what is best for the people.
     
  19. :goodpost: