Here is the problem with the Second Amendment (and related individual rights)., page 2

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 06:25 PM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by rival

Your point is well taken and appreciated from the big picture. The LAW (especially The Constitutional Law) must be stated so that people who support gun control will know how it stands vis a vis the constitution and so that those who might be given illegal orders (under the color of law) to unconstitutionally collect firearms a chance to take pause and reflect on the legality of said orders.

reply posted on 26-12-2012 @ 06:30 PM by Phoenix

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by rival

BUT IT HAS BEEN INFRINGED, CHANGED AND ALTERED....and all under the "color of law" given that the Judicial Branch (court system up to the Supreme Court) has the power to interpret Legislation and the Constitution.

You have identified the problem. Justice Marshalls opinion that the court could interpret and change laws written by congress through "judicial review" was an absolute usurpation of powers not granted in the constitution and in effect makes the court a legislative lawmaking body answerable to no one.

Without the theory of "judicial review" laws deemed unconstutional, null and void by the court would by common sense be remanded to congress to be rewritten to comply with the constitution or discarded as wholly unconstutional - this is what I believe the founders intended when making three co-equal branches of government.

The court should be a thumbs up, thumbs down decision making body only concerned with executive and legislative branches complying with the constitution - that is it!

My opinion is further supported by the fact that the founders recognized they could not cover every contingency or societal change and put in a formal process of amendment if needed. The process is difficult for good reason as they also recognized that politicians and sometimes people let emotions run out of control.

In the end congress itself has been marginalized as the peoples representitives in washington and the executive branch has been given undo influence by court appointments along with justices swayed by matters having nothing to do with the constitution itself nor its language.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 12:19 AM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by Phoenix

Yes and the power of the Supreme Court to be final arbiter makes it the supreme law of the land and arguably more powerful than the other two branches of government which were all intended to be equal. It can also be argued that the executive branch is usurping power by creating laws of its own (not thru the legislative branch) and circumventing the judicial review process altogether. In addition (and another reason why the last election was so important) the executive branch nominates judges and there will be several likely positions open on the Supreme Court over the next four years.

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 01:28 PM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by rival

Your point is worth repeating as it does not say "freedom to keep and bear arms (may be infringed as the Congress and the States see fit)".....These lawyers in Congress didn't fail at "reading comprehension" so they are in direct and intentional conflict with the Constitution.

edit on 28-12-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 28-12-2012 @ 05:30 PM by rival

reply to post by CosmicCitizen

I like the way you put that. This part rolls off the tongue very nicely and I imagine it hard to refute
in live discussion...

I will be borrowing it if ya don't mind

it does not say "freedom to keep and bear arms (may be infringed as the Congress and the States see fit)"

reply posted on 13-1-2013 @ 07:18 AM by CosmicEgg

reply to post by rival

Hey, do you understand what "amendment" means? It means "change". "Amend". Look it up.

But hey, what about your losses due to the Patriot Act? You lost the fourth amendment rights there. The eight was tossed aside with Guantanamo, but of course that is only used for those already guilty and not for citizens even...right? I mean, when the Republican Convention was meeting in ...where was it...somewhere in the northern states, you had people being arrested for sitting on the public greens and listening to a concert across the way, so did you lose your right to the first then? What about the Occupy movement? There was a lot of first amendment violation going on there.

Another thing to consider with all of these laws and amendments: Think about the fact that former felons have no right to vote. What is that, like 6 million or more people in the States have no right to vote. Should they pay taxes? They aren't represented and can have no influence on their future. Once they've served their sentence, they need to be reinstated as full citizens like everyone else. They are forever at a disadvantage. Is it any wonder they continue on their path of crime? They're given little choice, and the are forever "lesser" people. No, that is not constitutional, but it is.

You will lose your guns or you will lose whatever little you still retain. You are only kidding yourselves. You can't use those guns against the government anyway. You can pretend you've still got something, but look at what they're really doing while throwing up this little smokescreen.

You might want to go through your Bill of Rights, your entire Constitution, and then look at the amendments. Look further into what has been changed of those while you were nowhere near joining this planet, look at what has changed since your birth, since you graduated HS, since you were busy raising your family. If you haven't got to that stage of life yet then get used to the Constitution evaporating before your eyes. It truly is part of your history.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^