Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

This is a discussion on Sotomayor being grilled on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by TerriLi If 2A does not cover the states, then you might as well kiss the rest of the amendments good bye. Why ...

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #61
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by TerriLi View Post
    If 2A does not cover the states, then you might as well kiss the rest of the amendments good bye.
    Why is that? The Federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep an bear arms nor can they prohibit free speech or force you to testify against yourself. ALL THE AMENDMENTS ARE INTACT, as they always have been.

    Which means no more pleading the fifth, or right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, or anything else that perseveres your freedoms.
    I suggest you read Chief Justice Reed's majority opinion in the Adamson case.

    Constitutional law applies to the USA, it sets the laws basis, without it well imagine a world of warlords and fiefdoms. If part of it doesn't apply, then one can argue none of it applies. Thats a slippery slope I do not want to see.
    It is obvious you do not understand HOW the Constitution applies. It is YOUR slippery slope that leads to the ridiculous conclusions of warlords and fiefdoms.

    You have heard of the concept of sovereign states, right?

    If part of it doesn't apply, then one can argue none of it applies.
    I would very interested in hearing your arguments in this area.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    Federalist shmederalist

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The fact of the matter, and you would know that if you read Federalist 76, is that the Executive's ultimate appointment should be assured barring a disqualifying flaw.
    Duh. Federalist shmederalist. Just the writing of a group with an opinion; no different than us here.

    Now, I am indeed happy to hear that you believe the Executive's appointment should be assured; at least in this case, though I don't particularly like her 2A viewpoint.

    That said, I think your assertion is rather simple minded. The Senate has a responsibility to be certain of the quality of the nominee, and that takes more than what you imply by quoting the Federalists. If we did things your way, the Senate would be a rubber stamp for the executive. Yuch.

    My big gripe with the whole business really centers on the grand standing. We need to get C-span out of there. Take the microphones away, and send in some excellent reporters along with some stenographers. Maybe if we get the clowns off tv they could get down to business and actually probe the nominee ( of whichever party) on important issues, and in an effective way.

  4. #63
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    For SD- JURISDICTION

    SD WROTE-- with regard to KELO (the New London taking case):

    The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. .[/QUOTE]

    Of all the absurd things you have written here, this one takes the cake.

    The Supreme court had jurisdiction, and ruled on the case. End of story, if for no other reason there is no further avenue of appeal.

    You have absolutely no idea what factors go into determining whether or not a particular court has jurisdiction on any particular matter.

    Just for grins, do you have a clue what the International Shoe case was about--- (Hope I remember the name of the case correctly). I doubt it. It was the Supremes defining jurisdiction for the lower courts. Are you even aware that you can be hauled into court in Kansas (for example) for something you may have done (civil wrong) in New Mexico?

    You are in fantasy land and denying reality. The Supreme court defines what jurisdiction the lower courts have, and it is also the sole determiner of when it has jurisdiction. Shouting to the rooftops to the contrary just reveals a deep lack of comprehension of our legal system.

  5. #64
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Duh. Federalist shmederalist. Just the writing of a group with an opinion; no different than us here.
    Except for the fact the Founders designed and implemented our government for the United States of America. A FEDERALIST GOVERNMENT. I know you would prefer socialism, communism, a monarchy or some other system but that is not the case in America. You an espouse tearing down our system and these days you wil gain significant support from liberals and libertarians but you will fail. America is strong and the People will prevail. The Founders will be vindicated.

    Now, I am indeed happy to hear that you believe the Executive's appointment should be assured; at least in this case, though I don't particularly like her 2A viewpoint.
    It is the way things should be as Hamiton wrote in Federalist 76.

    That said, I think your assertion is rather simple minded.
    Of course you do, As a liberal you want to see nuance and shades of grey when thinfs are very clear. It allows many to vacillate their opinions based on political winds.

    The Senate has a responsibility to be certain of the quality of the nominee, and that takes more than what you imply by quoting the Federalists.
    Really? What is your opinion on the confirmation process? More importantly, why do you think your opinion trumps the authors'?

    If we did things your way, the Senate would be a rubber stamp for the executive. Yuch.
    Apparently, you did not research the entirety of Federalist 76. It is not a rubber stamps but rather there is an unseen check. Further, there is no better system as Hamilton recognized.

    My big gripe with the whole business really centers on the grand standing. We need to get C-span out of there. Take the microphones away, and send in some excellent reporters along with some stenographers. Maybe if we get the clowns off tv they could get down to business and actually probe the nominee ( of whichever party) on important issues, and in an effective way.
    We agree yet again!

  6. #65
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    SD WROTE-- with regard to KELO (the New London taking case):

    The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction.

    Of all the absurd things you have written here, this one takes the cake.

    The Supreme court had jurisdiction, and ruled on the case. End of story, if for no other reason there is no further avenue of appeal.

    You have absolutely no idea what factors go into determining whether or not a particular court has jurisdiction on any particular matter.
    You are wrong. I know EXACTLY the factors as whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction. It is in the COnstitution! Have you read it?

    Article III Section 2.

    The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

    In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
    --------------------------------------------

    Can you understand that by yourself or do you need someone else to 'interpret' it for you.

    Just for grins, do you have a clue what the International Shoe case was about--- (Hope I remember the name of the case correctly).
    No, I am unfmailiar with the Shoe case.

    It was the Supremes defining jurisdiction for the lower courts.
    Yes, that is correct. Of course, the Congress can eliminate EVERY lower court at their whim. Did you know that? That does not change the Constitutional restrictions on jurisdiction for the Supreme Court.

    Are you even aware that you can be hauled into court in Kansas (for example) for something you may have done (civil wrong) in New Mexico?
    That WOULD be something in which the Court has jurisdiction. It is CLEARLY articulated in the Constitution.

    You are in fantasy land and denying reality. The Supreme court defines what jurisdiction the lower courts have, and it is also the sole determiner of when it has jurisdiction.
    I know you wish the United States was ruled by robed, unelected oligarchs, lording over the populace but that is not the case. The Court cannot determine their own jurisdiction. The Constitution defines it.

    Shouting to the rooftops to the contrary just reveals a deep lack of comprehension of our legal system.
    Just curious, have you ever read the Constitution? What did you think of it?

  7. #66
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,573

    Yup, read it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Just curious, have you ever read the Constitution? What did you think of it?
    Yup read it, many times. . Some of us actually have the ability to understand what we read. Others don't.

    You can shout to the heavens that the Supremes didn't have jurisdiction in Kelo, but of course, THEY DID!!!! They ruled. And New London-Phizer won. Kelo lost.

    How you can possibly deny reality the way you do is beyond my comprehension.

    I'm going to quote the same stuff you quoted: read it carefully.

    " The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States."

    What part of that isn't clear to you. ALL CASES IN LAW AND EQUITY arising under this constitution!!! Have you forgotten the references to eminent domain within the constitution? That was the point being litigated and it is a point arising from the text of the constitution; so end of story, the court had jurisdiction, ruled, and whether you like it or not, as they say, "that's the way it is."

  8. #67
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Yup read it, many times. . Some of us actually have the ability to understand what we read. Others don't.

    You can shout to the heavens that the Supremes didn't have jurisdiction in Kelo, but of course, THEY DID!!!!
    And the entire basis of your argument is that they took the case. Therefore they must have had jurisdiction.

    Have you heard of the logic flaw called circular argument? That is what you have just demonstrated.


    I'm going to quote the same stuff you quoted: read it carefully.

    " The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States."
    Do you not understand the difference between power and jurisdiction, which you conveniently ignored?


    Have you forgotten the references to eminent domain within the constitution?
    Are you aware that applies ONLY to the Federal government?

    I agree completely with the KELO decision though I think it was wrong headed. The Federal government HAD NO BUSINESS IN THE BUSINESS OF THE STATE.

    That was the point being litigated and it is a point arising from the text of the constitution; so end of story, the court had jurisdiction, ruled, and whether you like it or not, as they say, "that's the way it is."
    Again with your circular argument. You can shout to the heavens that the Court has jurisdiction because they took the case. That doesn't make your argument any less inane.

  9. #68
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263

    I have a question 4 u wanna be lawyers...

    So, say that down the road, the SCOTUS says that the 2A is not incorporated and there is no personal right, under the constitution, to self defense....

    So then say the Feds continue to tighten gun control or even 50 years down the road try to take guns altogether like in the UK....

    Many states have, in their own constitutions, a 2A'ish protection written in when they were adopted to statehood. So a Federal ban on weapons would be against many state constitutions. What happens then??
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #69
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    So, say that down the road, the SCOTUS says that the 2A is not incorporated and there is no personal right, under the constitution, to self defense....

    So then say the Feds continue to tighten gun control or even 50 years down the road try to take guns altogether like in the UK....
    First, no wanna be lawyer here. After being accepted to five law schools I chose engineering. Best choice I ever made.

    Second, the Feds can't continue to tighten gun control because THEY NEVER STARTED. The Second Amendment ensures the prohibition of legislation that infringes on our rights.

    Many states have, in their own constitutions, a 2A'ish protection written in when they were adopted to statehood. So a Federal ban on weapons would be against many state constitutions. What happens then??
    There can be no Federal ban. There is no conflict.

  11. #70
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    First, no wanna be lawyer here. After being accepted to five law schools I chose engineering. Best choice I ever made.

    Second, the Feds can't continue to tighten gun control because THEY NEVER STARTED. The Second Amendment ensures the prohibition of legislation that infringes on our rights.
    You live in the same U.S. as the rest of us right? You know, the one that had an AWB and had a limit on magazine size?

    There can be no Federal ban. There is no conflict.
    That's a pretty absolute statement. Maybe there couldn't be a ban today, but as the law of the land continues to become perverted further away from the intent of the constitution by "settled precident" and "settled case law" then I don't see how you can say there "can be no Federal ban" 50 years from now.

    So I'm back to my original question. If the Feds try to restict something contrary to a state constitution, what then?
    Last edited by tinkerinWstuff; July 16th, 2009 at 01:06 AM. Reason: clearer verbage
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  12. #71
    Member Array Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Staunton, Va.
    Posts
    307
    Second, the Feds can't continue to tighten gun control because THEY NEVER STARTED. The Second Amendment ensures the prohibition of legislation that infringes on our rights.
    Just to list the major ones....

    National Firearms Act - 1934, Gun Control Act - 1968, Firearms Owner's Protection Act - 1986 (Hughes Amendment), Assault Weapons Ban - 1994

    Randy

  13. #72
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    I have to say I agree with almost all of SD's statements here.

    Including choosing Engineering as a career!!
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  14. #73
    Member Array imatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    I love to watch the discomfort of conservatives when they want the SC to be a bunch of "activists" and incorporate 2A and the full BOR.

    That happens to be the correct position, but it is antithetical to what the hard line states rights-BOR applies only to Congress crowd preach.
    Since when is incorporating the 2A considered activist? I do believe that the 2A is VERY specific in that "shall not be infringed" would mean that nobody can overrule. There's your incorporation argument right there - in the wording.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array Patti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Posts
    2,641
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    The whole thing of appointing people to positions based on gender or race is whats bothering me. She makes no secrets about why she is there. Scary stuff.
    If they want diversity, then I insist that the next nominee be a one-legged midget!
    Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy. Winston Churchill

  16. #75
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by SIXTO View Post
    The whole thing of appointing people to positions based on gender or race is whats bothering me. She makes no secrets about why she is there. Scary stuff.

    Her appointment screams of affirmative action.
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Millions Of Gun Owners Reject Sotomayor
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Analysis of Sotomayor and 2A issues
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 08:42 AM
  3. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 11:14 PM
  4. More About Sotomayor on Gun Control
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Grilled out for the first time this year today...
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 05:41 PM