2A -- Where does presumed authority to befoul the right come from?

This is a discussion on 2A -- Where does presumed authority to befoul the right come from? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Question: Where, specifically, does the U.S. Supreme Court claim this authority comes from, for a temporarily-governing few to limit arms in the hands of the ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 68
Like Tree38Likes

Thread: 2A -- Where does presumed authority to befoul the right come from?

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,762

    Question 2A -- Where does presumed authority to befoul the right come from?

    Question: Where, specifically, does the U.S. Supreme Court claim this authority comes from, for a temporarily-governing few to limit arms in the hands of the People? Got specifics, citations, documents that show this clearly?


    It seems to me that the ultimate authority is the People, who granted fairly limited and specific authority to government on their behalf (not over them). And the Constitution's 2A is a specific declaration prohibiting government infringement of the right. Without specific authorization to do so, we're left with only the specific denial of authorization to do so (via the 2A).

    What does SCOTUS state that justifies such authority? When the entire range of limitations is considered, it's clear SCOTUS somehow believes there's almost nothing that government doesn't have the authority to restrict, limit or criminalize (including limiting of practically any feature, type, style, capacity, capability, size, caliber, quantity, frequency of purchase, where we carry, fees/cost imposed on the People for the right [privilege of exercising that right], or anything else).

    I have read a good dozen books on the subject of the Second Amendment's origins, on SCOTUS cases over the centuries, and many of the key SCOTUS opinions and dissenting opinions. And I still can't quite figure out where they think this authority actually comes from, beyond government's assumption is has an interest in doing so and SCOTUS's assumption that such an assumption is all that's really required.


    This question came out of an earlier discussion.
    Last edited by ccw9mm; March 30th, 2013 at 08:08 PM. Reason: spelling, grammar
    sdprof, dV8r and ANGLICO like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,949
    Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. That's the only thing I can think; well that and ya give um a inch and they'll take a mile. Sorry, my friend your thread is worth way more than a couple of cliches, but it's truly beyond me where these guys get off pretending that their elected offices gives them dominion over us. One day they may wake from dreamland and understand that all the liberties that they have taken from us while excluding themselves comes with a price. Until then we can only bide our time and chug along as good little peeps...
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array rednichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    585
    I've been reading the oral arguments transcript of Hollingsworth v. Perry (I have a legal education) and am fascinated by the legal minds who are our Supreme Court justices. They have taken these lawyers on all kinds of side trips from where the lawyers meant to go, which I expect they did with the 2A cases of just a few years ago. I've been accused of having a high I.Q ("I'm not crazy, my Mom had me tested"!) and learned long ago, "to excel at a test, first learn how the test is given", as must we in wanting our cases before this court.

    By the way, the Supreme Court was established by the Founders in the Constitution, so I reckon we're stuck with it. They sure got most everything else right! Try living in Australia, as I do, we not only don't have 2A, we don't have 1A!

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Florida
    Posts
    9,315
    Apparently they think it comes from winning the election 51% to 49%.

    They project that a simple majority (by 1% margin) equates to 90% of the people agreeing with their agenda.

    This is where the makeup of our government comes into play. Legislatively the makeup of the house and senate somewhat offsets this simple majority ability to make sweeping changes for all. This is why the next midterm election in 2014 are SOOOOOOO important. It is time to take some of the teeth out of the bite of the Executive Branch by turning the makeup of the Legislative Branch. This will send a message that the large metropolitan areas of the country that shaped the presidential election can't decide legislatively how the rest of the country will live.
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.


    Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Question: Where, specifically, does the U.S. Supreme Court claim this authority comes from, for a temporarily-governing few to limit arms in the hands of the People? Got specifics, citations, documents that show this clearly?

    I have read a good dozen books on the subject of the Second Amendment's origins, on SCOTUS cases over the centuries, and many of the key SCOTUS opinions and dissenting opinions. And I still can't quite figure out where they think this authority actually comes from, beyond government's assumption is has an interest in doing so and SCOTUS's assumption that such an assumption is all that's really required.


    This question came out of an earlier discussion.
    IMHO:
    Most of the SCOTUS believe that their high position and high education give them the (improper) Right to decide the fate of the people who gave them their position. They ignor our founding fathers designs for how the branches of government were designed to work and cross-check each other. Instead allow themselves to be manipulated into redefining the Constitution to fit a warped and twisted agenda to undermine our Rights and Freedoms.

    BTW, this all comes in part from believing the king of lies instead of the King of Truth. But that is a forbidden subject in most circles, this one included.
    I get in trouble often for this, but the way I see it if a man dares not speak the truth he really is not a man, but a puppet, which is another part of the problem we face.
    Last edited by dV8r; March 31st, 2013 at 08:56 PM. Reason: SP
    IsaiahM33 likes this.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    [QUOTE=dV8r;2682826]IMHO:
    [B]Most of the SCOTUS believe that their high position and high education give them the... [/BQUOTE]

    Their position comes from nomination by a president and confirmation by The Senate.
    It is an appointment to a constitutional office. They are not technically Federal Employees-they are
    Constitutional Officers. Big difference. Their authority comes from our constitution
    itself:

    Article III Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

    That's pretty clear isn't it.

    If you believe in our constitution, or have sworn to preserve it, this sentence in Article III is part of what
    you should believe and defend. No picking and choosing.

    The Supreme Court isn't some extra-constitutional invention of the present administration.

    In post 5 this was stated: "They ignor our founding fathers designs" Nope. They are part and
    parcel of our founder's designs, as should be obvious from the quote of Article III I just provided.

    President Washington nominated the first Chief Justice, John Jay. It heard its first case in 1791,
    and it was a technical procedural dispute.

    So, who gave them the authority to...? The founding fathers!!!!!!!!
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,447
    At the same time wisely excluding 2a from any infringement by anyone including SCOTUS. If anyone can show me a direct phrase that says Shall not be infringed except by " fill in the blank" I will try to eat a copy of the bill of rights

    It isnt there nor is it inferred by anything in the 2A. A court or government cannot limit or take away basic human right to self defense of life or liberty that is part of the natural world down to animals that will fight to survive and remain free using all means available. Until beaten down and tamed of course as far as animals and many of them cannot be.

    It is a right that predates our founding, and goes back to the beginnings of time.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,074
    [QUOTE=Hopyard;2682870]
    Quote Originally Posted by dV8r View Post
    IMHO:
    [B]Most of the SCOTUS believe that their high position and high education give them the... [/BQUOTE]

    Their position comes from nomination by a president and confirmation by The Senate.
    It is an appointment to a constitutional office. They are not technically Federal Employees-they are
    Constitutional Officers. Big difference. Their authority comes from our constitution
    itself:

    Article III Section 1. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

    That's pretty clear isn't it.

    If you believe in our constitution, or have sworn to preserve it, this sentence in Article III is part of what
    you should believe and defend. No picking and choosing.

    The Supreme Court isn't some extra-constitutional invention of the present administration.

    In post 5 this was stated: "They ignor our founding fathers designs" Nope. They are part and
    parcel of our founder's designs, as should be obvious from the quote of Article III I just provided.

    President Washington nominated the first Chief Justice, John Jay. It heard its first case in 1791,
    and it was a technical procedural dispute.

    So, who gave them the authority to...? The founding fathers!!!!!!!!
    Don't confuse procedures with limitations against government power. Their authority to hear cases and render decisions in accordance with the Constitution is NOT the question. Until you can cite where in the Constitution limitations against the 2A are (they are definitely not in the 2A itself), you are wasting time and making a pointless argument. Simply saying "the Founders said they can" and leaving it at that very much does not cut it. Going over how the "gears" of the system function also fails to address the question. Where, in the Constitution, do they claim the authority to enact limits against the 2A? If your answer is to post more red herrings like the post above, I suggest you think harder.
    Ghost1958 and dV8r like this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    [QUOTE=peckman28;2682918]
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    Don't confuse procedures with limitations against government power. Their authority to hear cases and render decisions in accordance with the Constitution is NOT the question. Until you can cite where in the Constitution limitations against the 2A are (they are definitely not in the 2A itself),
    The judicial authority is the authority to interpret the whole of the constitution. That includes,
    2A. This was established early on. Just because I stated that their first case was a procedural
    matter does not mean that their judicial authority is limited to procedural matters.

    Generations of Supreme Courts have interpreted the meaning and scope of every portion of our
    constitution; recently for example incorporating 2A under the 14th-- thus in theory giving the
    court and giving Congress the power to limit the ability of states to infringe on the right to keep and
    bear arms. At this point, either Congress can step forward and protect 2A (the votes seem to be
    there in The House for sure), or they can sit back, take the lazy man's approach and wait for The Supremes
    to inform us as to what limits if any exist to the right to keep and bear arms--- precisely as they
    have told us the limits of free speech- 1A, or the scope of 4A protections.

    Questioning the obvious authority from the constitution itself, and actual history of the exercise of their
    authority is a rather futile business IMO. They are doing precisely what the founders intended.

    I find it amusing that many who cheered Heller now question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to act,
    to make judicial decisions. Can't have it both ways. If they lack authority, then Heller is meaningless along
    with hundreds of other decisions including the disposition of the estate of Anna Nicole Smith.
    Sig 210, wdbailey and rednichols like this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dV8r View Post
    IMHO:
    Most of the SCOTUS believe that their high position and high education give them the (improper) Right to decide the fate of the people who gave them their position.
    So, who gave them the authority to...? The founding fathers!!!!!!!!
    Back to the OP question, the sole question of this thread: where, specifically, does SCOTUS believe the authority to allow infringement comes from, above and beyond the "shall not be infringed" prohibition in the 2A, the limitations of the 9A and 10A?

    I'm looking for the specific documented, Constitutional authority they're relying upon to infringe these things.

    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  12. #11
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,527
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Back to the OP question, the sole question of this thread: where, specifically, does SCOTUS believe the authority to allow infringement comes from, above and beyond the "shall not be infringed" prohibition in the 2A, the limitations of the 9A and 10A?

    I'm looking for the specific documented, Constitutional authority they're relying upon to infringe these things.

    It was given to you. Article III Section 1. It was plainly understood by all of the time, and
    by anyone who cares to think about it, that Article III Section 1 gives them the authority to
    interpret the meaning of the word "infringe" in 2A, precisely as it gives them the authority
    to expound upon the meaning of the word "unreasonable" in the 4th amendment.

    Its really simple. Someone has to decide a case. That is them.
    rednichols likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,447
    There wont be a straight answer to that OP. It isnt there. Intentions, precedents, what has been done in history illegally being brought up wont put it there. It simply isnt in the document anyplace and actually is forbidden.

    On a personal note I dont applaud anything short of decisions that say clearly, there are no limits on the 2A and we SCOTUS have no authority to rule on any such limits beyond stating what is already stated by the 2A. They are Unconstitutional null and void.
    KyBill likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,128
    The justices rulings are the "authority". Some believe they have the power to sidestep the constitution through interpretation. Once it's done, it's done. So what happens when the protectors of the constitution are corrupted? They are the final word. It will take a new set of justices to fix the corruption with a new interpretation. Basing our unalienable and constitutionally protected rights on the outcome of court case rulings is going to have flaws. It does have, has had, and will have outcomes based on a persons agenda. I suppose that is human nature. It will take a strong collective will of the people to reverse a bad ruling. It may take an entire generation to fix. It may stay corrupted until, nationally, something mentally or physically cataclysmic happens. ...Just my $0.02.

  15. #14
    Member Array Bummer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Back to the OP question, the sole question of this thread: where, specifically, does SCOTUS believe the authority to allow infringement comes from, above and beyond the "shall not be infringed" prohibition in the 2A, the limitations of the 9A and 10A?

    I'm looking for the specific documented, Constitutional authority they're relying upon to infringe these things.

    the federalist #78. A Hamilton

    The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array dV8r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Back to the OP question, the sole question of this thread: where, specifically, does SCOTUS believe the authority to allow infringement comes from, above and beyond the "shall not be infringed" prohibition in the 2A, the limitations of the 9A and 10A?

    I'm looking for the specific documented, Constitutional authority they're relying upon to infringe these things.

    I am saying you will not find the answer because there is none, they are trying to undermine our rights from a figment of their imagination. Brought on by too much power with no accountability. So they make things up even citing European law. (SIC)
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    LEARN something today so you can TEACH something tomorrow.
    Dominus Vobiscum <))>(
    Where is the wisdom that we have lost in knowledge?" T.S. Elliot

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •