posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:23 AM
Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
We can't take the good and toss the bad though..and that crosses amendments as well as aspects of just the 2nd. The Constitution is a package deal,
not a buffet after all.
Baloney! We are absolutely supposed to take the good and toss the bad That how we make progress. If the SC only gets it 90% right that does not mean
we have to accept the 10% they got wrong. The SC is not the law if they make a mistake they need to be held accountable. They are not the final
arbitrators The People are! The people created government and are its masters. The created.is not higher then its creator...
Good with the bad means accepting the decisions by the court which we don't *ALL* like as well as those that define the rights in the best possible
way we can have it.
If we want to go 100% strictly and by literal terms of the Constitution with NO OUTSIDE CONSIDERATIONS...which is your position as I understand it
here, then the second is very short and to the point.
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
Brevity was something they valued back then...a bit TOO much. Now, we DO use outside references and outside authority to INTERPRET the document.....so
we know, for instance, the founders intended the Militia to stand outside of Government as a check/balance TO Government. It was not intended to be a
National Guard as our state 'Uniformed Militia" could be termed. That HAS been the argument many have made with a straight face.
Strictly by the words of the document..taken in isolation? They're 100% right too. That is NOT an individual right by any means...and I'd ask anyone
who argued it, what part of those few words say otherwise?
You see.... The idea that we stand and say 'The Constitution is the Constitution and that's that!" is silly, short sighted and EXCEPTIONALLY self
defeating. Particularly when the document itself DOES specifically give the duties of interpretation to the Courts and the Supreme Court WAS making
precedent setting interpretative decisions WHILE THE FOUNDERS WERE ALIVE to change that, if that hadn't been by their design and intent.
I'm honestly lost for where to go on this. You basically say the whole basis and purpose of the Supreme Court and Judicial Branch is wrong and
unfounded. Where is there to go with that? I mean, can I saw the whole executive branch is likewise un-necessary and prone to abuse? It may be
true..but it doesn't make their purpose and their function any less legal or valid to our system's operation as a whole?