So... What about The Constitution?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

11-09-2012, 07:28 AM
timshufflin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpd3672

That's my point, though...your 28th Amendment is itself subject to interpretation...it'd be easy, in the hypothetical 29th Amendment to define "small arms" as "any single shot gun in .22LR caliber" and "poof," there goes the 2nd Amendment, for all intents and purposes.

I think it's best to simply appoint wise, conservative justices that aren't trying to further an agenda with every decision they make. Unfortunately, that's what we're stuck with, for at least 4 more years, which will probably be at least 2, maybe 3 judges.

Sir, you can get rid of the 2nd amendment right now with a new 28th amendment, you do know that? The 28th amendment would be voted on and say "28th amendment, repeals 2nd amendment" it would be done. Why wouldn't it happen? You need a 2/3rds vote and a constitutional convention baby!

You cannot leave any of the Constitution up to interpretation of "very conservative judges" because: 1. there is no such thing and 2. it will be impossible to maintain a court of such judges if there were.

You have to amend the Constitution and amend it perfectly so that there is no doubt and your firewall is that it will take a 2/3rds vote and a Constitutional convention or one of 5 other ways to amend the Constitution. Amending is hard, it is meant to be.
11-09-2012, 07:50 AM
dpd3672

The entire purpose of the SCOTUS, though, is to interpret laws, including the Bill of Rights. If not, who would serve to check a state or local jurisdiction that decided to pass an unconstitutional law?

It's a necessary evil, it's just been abused for much of recent history is all I'm saying.

You don't think that Congress from 2008-2010 couldn't have pushed through a 2/3 majority to repeal the 2nd Amendment? They pushed through Obamacare, it's not too much of a stretch, and if they couldn't, they were dangerously close to a legislature that could. I'm not comfortable with that much power in any one branch of government, be it the legislature, SCOTUS, or POTUS.
11-09-2012, 08:07 AM
timshufflin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpd3672

The entire purpose of the SCOTUS, though, is to interpret laws, including the Bill of Rights. If not, who would serve to check a state or local jurisdiction that decided to pass an unconstitutional law?

It's a necessary evil, it's just been abused for much of recent history is all I'm saying.

You don't think that Congress from 2008-2010 couldn't have pushed through a 2/3 majority to repeal the 2nd Amendment? They pushed through Obamacare, it's not too much of a stretch, and if they couldn't, they were dangerously close to a legislature that could. I'm not comfortable with that much power in any one branch of government, be it the legislature, SCOTUS, or POTUS.

Actually, you are incorrect. The Supreme courts job is not to interpret laws, the Constitution does not need interpreting.
11-09-2012, 08:12 AM
dpd3672

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshufflin

Actually, you are incorrect. The Supreme courts job is not to interpret laws, the Constitution does not need interpreting.

The Supreme Court's job is specifically to interpret laws, it's their stated purpose.
11-09-2012, 08:15 AM
timshufflin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpd3672

The Supreme Court's job is specifically to interpret laws, it's their stated purpose.

Wanna bet?
11-09-2012, 08:18 AM
dpd3672

Sure, whaddaya have in mind?

Friendly, of course, I'm not a gambler.
11-09-2012, 08:42 AM
seaninmich

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpd3672

No, actually the opposite. The FF had no problem with citizens owning the exact same weapons the military used. As a matter of fact, the Revolutionary War was fought with quite a few privately owned guns.

I think there is a point where some things should be "military only," if for no other reason than national security...I don't want anyone with a checkbook to have access to our classified weapons; tanks, fighter jets, etc. There's too much danger of our enemies "catching up" on the cheap, as China has already proven more than willing (and able) to do.

Small arms, though; anything that's mechanical in nature, that isn't made using classified technology, should be accessible to anyone, within reason...not sure how I feel about some of the bigger stuff, explosives and the like. Legally, I think they fall within the spirit of the Constitution, but practically, the idea troubles me. I do agree, however, with the limitations against felons or people with serious mental conditions legally owning guns...something that's not directly addressed in the 2nd Amendment, but is a good "interpretation" of its intent.

LMAO!! so you are OK with interpreting the Constitution...so long as they follow YOUR interpretation! LOL.
11-09-2012, 08:46 AM
seaninmich

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpd3672

The Supreme Court's job is specifically to interpret laws, it's their stated purpose.

read article III.
11-09-2012, 08:47 AM
timshufflin

I cannot find one word, the word interpret.

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
11-09-2012, 08:52 AM
seaninmich

Quote:

Originally Posted by timshufflin

[COLOR=#ff0000][FONT=Times New Roman][B]I cannot find one word, the word interpret.

that is true. the Supreme Court is not charged with interpreting the Constitution. As flawed as the framers were, they weren't completely stupid. The Supreme Courts role is to declare if an act is Constitutional or not. plain and simple. black and white

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page