The Illegitimacy of the Supreme Court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

Democrats would use such laws to take away guns from those without mental issues. 'You're crazy if you want a gun.'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

Democrats would use such laws to take away guns from those without mental issues. 'You're crazy if you want a gun.'

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But that is not the best interpretation of the Bill of Rights which enumerated the basic rights of individuals not the basic rights of States.

You are straining to read a "rights of individuals" parameter into the Bill of Rights. If that's what the Framers intended, they could have said so. They didn't. It's nothing more than a dubious way of ignoring that they actually did say, "well-regulated militia."

Yes, and the militia was comprised of able bodied citizens who brought their own weapons when called to serve.

The context is clear, agree the addition of the subordinate clause, give those who choose to engage in a convoluted argument a place to start.

Fortunately the court has the capacity to understand the context.

The court say so in Miller.

They saying that in Miller, short barrel shotgun improper for militia use.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/

Are AR15 proper for militia use? The left people say is military weapon. Would appear ok by the logic of Miller.

[Anonymous]

Liberals are simply pissed that the Supreme Court no longer rubber stamps their social agenda. That is why they attack the Court as illegitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

Democrats would use such laws to take away guns from those without mental issues. 'You're crazy if you want a gun.'

Do you have any supporting evidence for this belief?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are simply pissed that the Supreme Court no longer rubber stamps their social agenda. That is why they attack the Court as illegitimate.

It’s hard to respond to someone like you who obviously has limited literacy skills. You managed to peck out your post but couldn’t read the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

Democrats would use such laws to take away guns from those without mental issues. 'You're crazy if you want a gun.'

Because Democrats are liberals and, therefore, evil. The slaughter of children is sad but a necessary evil in the war for America's soul.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are simply pissed that the Supreme Court no longer rubber stamps their social agenda. That is why they attack the Court as illegitimate.

Liberals are evil. If we love America, we will destroy it before we let liberals have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are simply pissed that the Supreme Court no longer rubber stamps their social agenda. That is why they attack the Court as illegitimate.

Liberals are evil. If we love America, we will destroy it before we let liberals have it.

That is quite the logical argument you have there...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

It is so unfortunate that guns were invented then. More modern consumer products, like cars, are highly regulated.

Too bad the current court is not smart enough to understand societies need to evolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The modern right wing in the US has re-interpreted the Second Amendment to mean unfettered access to guns, but traditional conservative jurists disagreed with that read and have called out the judicial activism of the last 20 years on this topic that has led the the gun hellscape we are living in now.

Interesting, at the Federal and state level laws placing restrictions on gun ownership and the ability to carry those arms has greatly increased over the past 20 years.

So unless the guns are acting on their own, the reason we are living in a “gun hellscape” would more likely be the lack of appropriate mental health care.

Perhaps focusing on the root cause of the violence, including violence where guns are used, would make society better. Isn’t that your actual goal?

So people who have mental issues are fine to have guns in your world? Because for most people, more money for mental health services AND background checks to ensure people with issues cannot legally have a gun would be a two-pronged solution that over 75% of the people support, and yet...

Democrats would use such laws to take away guns from those without mental issues. 'You're crazy if you want a gun.'

Because Democrats are liberals and, therefore, evil. The slaughter of children is sad but a necessary evil in the war for America's soul.

"Evil?" Unhinged commentary like that only lend further legitimacy to the notion that you wouldn't pass a psychiatric screening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

It is so unfortunate that guns were invented then. More modern consumer products, like cars, are highly regulated.

Too bad the current court is not smart enough to understand societies need to evolve.

The Founding Fathers included the words "well regulated" for a reason... Guns need to be well regulated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

It is so unfortunate that guns were invented then. More modern consumer products, like cars, are highly regulated.

Too bad the current court is not smart enough to understand societies need to evolve.

It's not the place of a court to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

It is so unfortunate that guns were invented then. More modern consumer products, like cars, are highly regulated.

Too bad the current court is not smart enough to understand societies need to evolve.

The Founding Fathers included the words "well regulated" for a reason... Guns need to be well regulated.

I think you are misunderstanding 'regulated' and using a modern definition about regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments in the Constitution, spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government.

So the 2nd amendment refers to the rights of the individual. The framers understood that not everyone might understand the concept of the people having rights so they reiterated it in the 9th amendment because it would be impossible to enumerate every right.

9th amendment states - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The other 9 amendments in the BOR recognize individual rights. The 2nd amendment created the state national guards. It’s a collective right, not an individual right. It’s just that it was accidentally inserted into a document that otherwise had a listing of individual rights. It was an oversight, a mistake. The sooner we acknowledge that the sooner we can do away with these guns.

Yes, the framers spent all that time and effort, yet made such a mistake. Must be nice in your fantasy world.

If the framers could have known the state of gun violence in the US today, they never would have included the 2nd amendment as it is written.

It is so unfortunate that guns were invented then. More modern consumer products, like cars, are highly regulated.

Too bad the current court is not smart enough to understand societies need to evolve.

The Founding Fathers included the words "well regulated" for a reason... Guns need to be well regulated.

I think you are misunderstanding 'regulated' and using a modern definition about regulations.

Yeah, the Second Amendment should properly be read as "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed and shall not be regulated." That's clearly the textualist interpretation of "well-regulated."