U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Gun-Rights Case

Originally posted by Togetic
reply to post by lazy1981

 

Whether Marshall was right or not, the fact remains that this is how the system works. We therefore need to work inside of it because changing it is not a practical option.

It's not a question of wheather Marshall was right or not I quoted to you the paragraph verbatim so we both know that this is not the way that this system realy works; Furthermore if we "work inside of it" then they will win anyway.

The whole purpose of the SC is to make sure that we are not just going along saying, "this is how the system works" and forget about the true system of government that was handed down to you and I paid for by our relatives or at the least our countrymen.

That is exactly the attitude that has let it get this far in America where we are actually debating wheather a justice can interpret the Constitution and wheather or not we have the individual right to bear arms or not.

I hope that you don't take my rebuke as an attack on you or your research (you are one of the few that will try to find out for themselves), I only wish to express that this train of thought is exactly what the powers that be want from us.

The Constitution is very plain and needs no interpretation. "IT IS" the LAW OF THE LAND. It is all subsequent laws that are open to interpretation in order to deem wheather they are in accordance with the Constitution.

reply to post by lazy1981


I think your approach to this problem is quixotic. You're forgetting that our court system comes from the common law courts of England. Judicial review and related doctrines were part of the common law system, and their implementation in America was merely a result that everyone expected.

The context in which the language was written is paramount. Otherwise, why is your interpretation any more valid than mine?

Lastly, as a practical matter, if no one interprets the constitution, how do we know what it means? What does "commerce... among the several states" mean? "Due process"? "High crimes and misdemeanors"? "Privileges or immunities"? "Equal protection"? And if two reasonable people disagree about the meaning of some text, whose job is it to settle the argument?

reply to post by Togetic


I totally agree with what you just said. Somebody has to have a final say on what is meant by the Constitution or more events like this will start to tear this country apart.

My opinion isn't the same as someone else's, so who decides in this situation? A court would, and which court has the highest authority? The Supreme Court.

This looks like a wake up call for some people since they don't understand who resolved disputes. It isn't a piece of paper, it is a human being. If nobody can interpret what it says, then how can we have any direction in this country?

I wish that they would fix the Constitution so there can be no difference in opinion on what is says. That way all these court cases would not have to happen and discussions like this would be a thing of the past. I'm ready for this to finally get settled so we all can be on the same page.

I don't think that some members are ready for a decision that goes against their opinion. Are they going to become domestic enemies of the US if they don't agree with the result of this case? I hope not since that wouldn't be a good thing to see.

I hope we all understand what can happen so prepare yourselves since we have to abide by the decision regardless if we agree or not.

Originally posted by Togetic
And if two reasonable people disagree about the meaning of some text, whose job is it to settle the argument?

Sounds a lot like the many groups of people who interpret the Bible differently.

We could always settle things the same way they do... However I think one side will have a pretty clear advantage.

[edit on 28-11-2007 by apc]

More info and story, on this particular case that I found interesting.

This person, in my personal opinion, is an idiot for making a statement like this.

When the Supreme court will make a final Decision.







[edit on 28-11-2007 by Realtruth]

If you want to know what the Founding Fathers meant, then start by reading "The Federalist papers" , then go from there.

Roper

reply to post by Togetic


My idea of the way this works is far from fanciful. The Constitution is written in plain English and very candidly. If one has a rudimentary command of the English language and proper reading comprehension skills, all of the laws and guidelines in the document are painfully obvious.

It was written this way in order to keep people from interpretting it, this way they could use it to interpret subsequent laws.

As a general idea, if the laws, principles, and rights laid out in our Constitution are open to interpretaion than the document itself holds no legal weight in any court of law. This was not meant to be a poem or some type of philosophy that is open to "interpretation," all Constitutions and Charters are designed to "define or outline" the limits of government, and rights afforded to it's people. In other words, they are created to gauge what the governing body can impose as law and what freedoms people are entitled to at minimum.

If government was allowed to interpret Charters and Constitutions then any form of Democratic-Republic could not exist.

One could iterpret the laws to mean what ever they fancy at the time; and if the law allowed this then they would be well within their legal power to imprison and torture at will. (oops, sorry Mr. Bush) Get the point.

As I said before we have been trained to see things this way because it makes it easier to subjugate the population. If any group of men are allowed to dictate to the people what a Charter/Constitution means to them then it has no practical purpose. It isn't even worth the paper it is written on.

As in science there must be a control or constant. Our Constitution is the scientific control in the "American Experiment."

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
reply to post by Togetic

 

My opinion isn't the same as someone else's, so who decides in this situation? A court would, and which court has the highest authority? The Supreme Court.

The whole point of our Constitution is to rule out "opinions," and you are entirely correct. The SC would decide an issue like this. They are to use the Constitution verbatim and the Articles of Confederation (not personal opinion) to hand down a verdict as to wheather or not a subsequent law if Constitutional or not. That is the scope of their power and abligation, nothing more.

They are not to legislate frrom the bench or give opinions.

And I agree, NOBODY wants to see this country torn apart. But if that tis the only option that a free man is left with then so be it. A corrupt or totalitarian legislature, judiciary, or executive branch is illegitimate and has no authority.

That being said if they go against the principles in our Constitution and the powers afforded to them than that is what they have left us with.

Oops, "is" Constitutional or not
and
Obligation

A couple observations -- first as they saying goes "The devil is not more powerful than the individual, the devil rules by convincing people to believe in lies."

"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."

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with stating Federal Authority. It is a statement of rights of states and individuals and as the 10 amendment says, if the constitution does not specifically grant a right to the feds they don't have it! It belongs to the state or the individual.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Bill of Rights was about clarifying authority of the states and citizens and not the Feds!

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
[James Madison, Federalist #45]

One follow up -- There are two "United States" so to speak. The 50 states is one and the other is the Federal Zone which is composed of DC and the territories like Puerto Rico and Guam. The Feds have more authority in the FederalZone. For example more taxation authority is granted to the feds in the zone.

Because this case is occurring in DC it might be a scam designed to convince people that Fed authority, which might exist in DC for gun control, applies to the states, which it doesn't.

reply to post by ReelView


I agree with the point you make. What I'm trying to impress upon some is the idea that if a legal document was left to "interpretation" as they claim the Constitution is it could be seen in what ever light one wishes in order to justify their goals at the time.

This is why the SC nor any other branch is allowed to interpret it. They are supposed to use it in disputes like this one and hand down a determination on whaether or not a law is inside the realm of power given to State or Federal Government as prescribed by the Constitution. And wheather a citizen's liberties have been violated.

Update on Supreme Court Gun case.

www.latimes.com...