Captain Crunch

Just a reminder, this thread has nothing to do with G. Gordon Liddy, Watergate, the Plumbers, or Richard Nixon, etc.

__________________


Country First
McCain ♦ Palin 08

Terry

paramedic70002

I just had a couple odd thoughts...

1. Does anybody know how the supremes go about making their decisions?

Do they vote first, talk about it, draw straws, what? Is it possible that they get together and decide that certain cases should be narrow, 5/4 wins, so that the future can be intentionally murky?

2. Will the minority 4 respect the majority opinion in future 2A cases?

__________________
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

InspectorGadget

Here is a reporters guide to the supreme court, this will answer a lot of questions better than I could. Since SCOTUS publishes this it is solid info.


Supreme Court - Public Information

__________________
Colt 1911 New Agent, CTLaser

God Made all men, Sam Colt made a 5FT tall woman and a 300lb Gorilla equal.

paramedic70002

Found this on another site:

To commemorate this historic occasion, I called the Supreme Court's Public Information Office and ordered what is called a "slip opinion." The slip opinion is the court opinion bound into a little paperback pamphlet. It is the first printing of the Court's opinion. I thought this would make a nice momento.

The cost is FREE. Just call 202-479-3211 ext 1 and ask for a printed copy of the slip opinion for Case 07-290 (DC v Heller). They will pop it in the mail to you. It might just become a collector's item some day. Of course, the preservation of our 2A rights was priceless.

__________________
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

JT

Thanks. I called and ordered one.

The guy said "you know, you can download one off of the website". I said "I also understand that I can get one mailed to me." He said, "it's the same one that's on the website, but anyway, what's your name and address?"


EDIT TO ADD:

I see there is a seperate thread on this...
http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...ia-scotus.html

__________________
Blessed be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. Psalm 144:1

Si vis pacem, para bellum

CowboyKen

I called and was told they don't have any more copies.

Ken

Jagger

Justice Scalia’s Methodology Of Constitutional Interpretation Is Just An Excuse For His Judicial Activism


In the excerpt below, from the U. S. Supreme Court's opinion in the case of Heller v. D. C, authored by Justice Scalia, the notorious right wing activist announces his intention to follow a rule of constitutional construction which dictates that the words of the Constitution should be understood in the sense they were normally and ordinarily used. However, the first source he consults is an obscure treatise, written seventy five years after the Second Amendment was ratified, which he apparently believes allows him to "rephrase" the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment provides: “A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.
The two sides in this case have set out very different
interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s
dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the
right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with
militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1
(STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it
protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected
with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within
the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867);

It appears that Scalia's Second Rule of Constitutional Construction is: If the lawmaker's words met with disapproval, the section of the Constitution being interpreted may be rephrased upon the slightest pretext.

stanislaskasava

It seems from the tone of your post that you don't believe the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately for you, the section you have quoted only works against your argument.

The word 'Because' is only used to clarify the meaning of the amendment for people unfamiliar with archaic English. The so-called rephrasing doesn't change the meaning -- it just makes it plainly clear with modern grammar.

I suggest you read the opinion again slowly -- perhaps one line at a time, until you can comprehend what Scalia is actually saying. Then, if you still disagree, come back with a good solid argument instead of flailing big words around and quoting passages that disprove your point.

Since you've taken the time to join the forum, why don't you start a new thread here, once you find something worth discussing? It will be much easier for us to see when it's not buried at the end of a 50+ page victory lap.

Bob The Great

You're stretching, sir.

__________________
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

Jagger

The methodology of interpretation used by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller opinion is probably not that which the lawmakers intended for him to use. Scalia states that he will interpret the text of the Second Amendment according to the "normal and ordinary" meanings that would been given it by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

Anyone knowledgeable of the common law in America in the late 1700's knows that it was well established law that the goal or object of interpreting laws was "the will of the legislator", not the understanding of "ordinary citizens." (See Blackstone's commentary on the "interpretation of laws" in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England.)

Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and would have known what the object of interpreting a law was when the Second Amendment was made. He was preaching it in 1812 to the Governor of Virginia.

The... maxims of the bench, to seek the will of the legislator and his words only, are proper... for judicial government.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:128