It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court Anyone?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Hi everyone, this is my first thread that I'm making from my phone so if I'm slow to reply I apologize in advance. Anywho, I'm sitting here lurking on ATS like usual reading threads about gun control and other constitutional debates and I was wondering to myself; if these proposals and new laws are unconstitutional, why has no one taken it to supreme court? If people are being arrested for protesting near a politician why don't they appeal to the SC. Maybe I have a great misunderstanding of the supreme court, but I thought they were the ones who ultimately made that decision. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're ever actually going toto start doing something to prevent our freedoms from being stripped away from us, wouldn't that be a good place to start? Let's use our government to fight our government.

Just some food for thought.

-Foot




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
You're right, that might be all we have left, but . . . and that's a big but, time is a problem. The Court is allowed to look at a case before anyone else in the following situations:

(a)The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b)The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1)All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2)All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3)All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
From 28 USC 1251 (I think I remember the cite correctly, anyway, that's the whole section.) Oh, original jurisdiction means they're the first one to look at the case, exclusive jurisdiction means they're the only one who can look at the case.

Basically, the Court can either go under (b)(2) which may be hard to arrange, or the whole mess has to go through another court first. If it does that, we could be talking about a couple of years, easily. By then one or both of the following bad things could have happened.

The government would go ahead with the registering, confiscating, and whatever else they wanted to do for those two or more years. Or, they can hope to make another appointment to the Court that will do as Obama wants. He only needs one more.

Remember Fast & Furious? The Holder subpoena is still being held up in District Court. Obama will do what he wants and will worrry about the rest later.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You're right that time is a problem. What an understatement. Its sad that our courts are clogged to the point that when the people need them for something as important as our liberty we cant even make it through the front door.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Bigfoot12714 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
Good question, and here is why.

Usually, once the Supremes hand down what one can only call an "ecompassing decision", they tend to lay low and silent for a while. Justice Scalia answered some questions on the 2nd, while leaving some doors wide open, unfortunately.

Check the date:

on December 18, 2012 at 6:20 PM, updated December 18, 2012 at 6:26 PM

blog.al.com...


The U.S. Supreme Court's recent major gun ban cases reinforced the right to bear arms, but leave the door open for some additional ownership restrictions, said John Carroll, the dean of Cumberland School of Law.


(snip)


Carroll, a former federal judge, said today that the high court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller and the 2010 ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago, did not provide lower courts with a lot of guidance in how to interpret efforts at gun restrictions.

The 2010 decision by the court found that Chicago's effort to restrict handguns and other guns was also not consistent with the 2nd Amendment rights for residents of states like Alabama, not just federal territories.




But Carroll, added, the decisions also did not provide much cover for gun rights advocates who would argue the 2nd Amendment's guarantee of the right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon.

The Heller case stemmed from a handgun ordinance in Washington, D.C. that required handgun owners to get a one-year license from the police chief and required owners to keep the guns locked and unloaded at home. Resident Dick Heller applied for a license, but was refused and then filed a lawsuit.

In his majority opinion in the court's 5-4 ruling in Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia said the 2nd Amendment "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."

But, the justice also argued the protection has some limits.


"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ..." Scalia wrote that the opinion was not in conflict with bans on gun ownership for convicted felons or the mentally ill. He also did not argue against restrictions on gun-carrying in places like schools and government buildings.


Restrictions on carrying guns in churches, schools, parks, and government buildings are left to the states. For instance, Georgia is putting several bills up for vote before the General Assembly in March to remove restrictions on "gun free zones" at schools churches, and parks.


Carroll said Scalia's opinion also includes language that may help those who want restrictions on assault rifles and magazines that can hold large numbers of bullets.

The justice wrote that the opinion should not be seen as casting doubt on "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. (The court's 1939 Miller case) holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."


This can be widely held to be open to interpretation. With the upsurge in AR sales, can they be held as "in common use"? What constitutes in "common use"? If they are "common use", did NY just violate this finding?

(bold emphasis mine)




top topics
 
2

log in

join