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... :smile:
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.
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.
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
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!
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!
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.
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.
IMHO: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.
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.
IMHO:
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!!!!!!!!
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:gah:
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 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.
IMHO:
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.
The judicial authority is the authority to interpret the whole of the constitution. That includes,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),
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.
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?So, who gave them the authority to...? The founding fathers!!!!!!!!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.
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, andBack 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
the federalist #78. A HamiltonBack 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 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.
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)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 comes from the Supreme Court whenever they make a majority ruling.. They have become the ultimate law of the land and no one so far has made any attempt to stop it....... We can post all we want on the subject and in they end they are the law.....
A citizens only recourse if they feel the Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional is to disobey the ruling...... Be prepared to possibly end up in jail.........
A citizens only recourse if they feel the Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional is to disobey the ruling...... Be prepared to possibly end up in jail.........
First, if they are corrupted Congress can impeach them as they serve only during good behavior.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? .
Second, Congress can pass a law instructing them or guiding them on various matters.
One checks the authority and power of the other. In post 14 Bummer quotes Hamilton and the Federalist
Papers. What he quoted makes perfect sense.
"The judiciary...has no sword... but merely judgment." It continues, "and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
As it happens, Congress
has seen fit to provide the judiciary with an arm from the executive branch-- the Marshal's service
with which it can enforce its decisions.
In short, they get to make decisions, and they have by proxy, the power of the executive branch
to enforce their decisions. No judge or justice is a jailer, but disobey their orders and a jailer (employee of
the executive branch) will hold you on the judge's or justice's order.
The "they don't have the authority," "they can't do that," argument is bogus. They do, they can,
they have, they will, and it is all quite within the intent of the founders as noted by Bummer when
he quoted the federalist 78.
Now, personally I don't like use of the federalist paper to justify or to refute anything. They are
nothing but the writings of 3 men for the purpose of persuasion. They are not law. They are
editorial opinion pieces, and they represent only one side of the arguments for and against
ratification of our constitution. However, once ratified, the constitution itself became the supreme law
of the land and it means what the elected officials in the executive branch, the elected officials in
congress, and the justices say it means.
We all are quite free to contact each of them and tell them we have a different view. Sometimes,
they listen.
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.First, if they are corrupted Congress can impeach them as they serve only during good behavior.
Second, Congress can pass a law instructing them or guiding them on various matters.
One checks the authority and power of the other. In post 14 Bummer quotes Hamilton and the Federalist
Papers. What he quoted makes perfect sense.
"The judiciary...has no sword... but merely judgment." It continues, "and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments."
As it happens, Congress
has seen fit to provide the judiciary with an arm from the executive branch-- the Marshal's service
with which it can enforce its decisions.
In short, they get to make decisions, and they have by proxy, the power of the executive branch
to enforce their decisions. No judge or justice is a jailer, but disobey their orders and a jailer (employee of
the executive branch) will hold you on the judge's or justice's order.
The "they don't have the authority," "they can't do that," argument is bogus. They do, they can,
they have, they will, and it is all quite within the intent of the founders as noted by Bummer when
he quoted the federalist 78.
Now, personally I don't like use of the federalist paper to justify or to refute anything. They are
nothing but the writings of 3 men for the purpose of persuasion. They are not law. They are
editorial opinion pieces, and they represent only one side of the arguments for and against
ratification of our constitution. However, once ratified, the constitution itself became the supreme law
of the land and it means what the elected officials in the executive branch, the elected officials in
congress, and the justices say it means.
We all are quite free to contact each of them and tell them we have a different view. Sometimes,
they listen.
So you think that 'depending on the aid of the executive arm' and 'has no influence over either the sword or the purse' means that the judiciary has power? 'It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgement...' Too funny. :rofl:
The Constitution means what it means, and its meaning cannot be changed by misinterpetation. I'm not quite sure why you're so enraptured by the Supreme Court... but it is entertaining, nonetheless. Perhaps you prefer to make your points by inverse proof? Very creative...
Then I suppose this brings at least me to the next obvious question. By Hopyard and a few others reasoning, we are already doomed to be at the whim of a few men sitting on the Supreme Court. Congress can pass any law. That law can be challenged and if Im reading this argument right the Constitution means nothing in reality.
That only the whimsies of a few justices controls everything they want to control by their rulings. And if we get different whimsically leaning folks on the court seats they can overturn what the previous ones did and THAT is now the end game.
And that is what our founders intended?:blink: It is the argument being used to support all this nonsense when you boil it down. That the Supreme Court Justices should be wearing crowns instead of robes because whatever thay say is legal is legal because they say it. And the Constitution is nothing but a old piece of paper.
It may not be what you guys are meaning to say but take a few minutes run your train of thought to the end of the track and that is exactly where you wind up.
Edited to add this. If this argument is actually the end game why am I and other writing any goverment offical about anything? Why even vote?
In all honesty this line of thinking if true saddens me. Because it means short of armed revolt which I never wanted to see. There is nothing to be done. The SC though forbidden to do it simply rules our nation as a small group of kings. And by this argument nothing short of that can be done to assure anything or force our nation back to a free nation again.
I cant accept that. But if its true I and thousands and thousands of others and even our reps on our side ultimately are wasting our time and should be digging bunkers instead of sending mail to our reps. Or getting our knee pads ready to bow to our masters.
That only the whimsies of a few justices controls everything they want to control by their rulings. And if we get different whimsically leaning folks on the court seats they can overturn what the previous ones did and THAT is now the end game.
And that is what our founders intended?:blink: It is the argument being used to support all this nonsense when you boil it down. That the Supreme Court Justices should be wearing crowns instead of robes because whatever thay say is legal is legal because they say it. And the Constitution is nothing but a old piece of paper.
It may not be what you guys are meaning to say but take a few minutes run your train of thought to the end of the track and that is exactly where you wind up.
Edited to add this. If this argument is actually the end game why am I and other writing any goverment offical about anything? Why even vote?
In all honesty this line of thinking if true saddens me. Because it means short of armed revolt which I never wanted to see. There is nothing to be done. The SC though forbidden to do it simply rules our nation as a small group of kings. And by this argument nothing short of that can be done to assure anything or force our nation back to a free nation again.
I cant accept that. But if its true I and thousands and thousands of others and even our reps on our side ultimately are wasting our time and should be digging bunkers instead of sending mail to our reps. Or getting our knee pads ready to bow to our masters.
I'm seeing a lot of irrational (failure to think rationally) in the above, except for Hopyard's posts, who I do not know personally. It is what it is, deal with it. The Left says a lot of irrational things (about which I recently emailed CNN to chastise them for proselytising for control of marriage and of guns) and I would be sorry to see the Right do it, too. The Constitution is a thinking man's game; read it, learn it, live it. And Hopyard is right to say, you can't pick and choose from it; it is what it is.
1 - 20 of 68 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Defensive Carry
A forum community dedicated to defensive firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about everyday carry, optics, holsters, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
SatCong
1070 Replies
OldVet
478 Replies
LimaCharlie
257 Replies
