|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,013
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,013 |
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything. The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there. Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems like the only time it's " interpreted" is when someone, usually the government, wants to do something to somebody, usually " We The People", that the Constitution already expressly prohibits them from doing, in plain simple English that even lawyers, judges, and politicians ought to be able to understand.
Last edited by 308ragincajun; 07/01/16.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,648
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,648 |
If there's no constitution, what means "rule of law"?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35,900 |
They've been playing with it for a long damned time. The Supreme Court once said that they can prohibit you from having a backyard garden because the corn you wouldn't buy because you had that garden was part of the stream of interstate commerce. If they can justify that, they can do anything. The document is open to interpretation by the Courts. That's why they are there. Just because things don't always go as you like, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It seems like the only time it's " interpreted" is when someone, usually the government, wants to do something to somebody, usually " We The People", that the Constitution already expressly prohibits them from doing, in plain simple English that even lawyers, judges, and politicians ought to be able to understand. Well EXACTLY!! WTF do you think it's there!? That is precisely what it's for.... The point is people will over reach and stretch the limits of authority in pursuit of power or to advance an agenda. Why would ANYONE be surprised when government tries to do something to you? You think they are nice guys or something? Like they should know what they should and should not do?
Last edited by BobinNH; 07/01/16.
The 280 Remington is overbore.
The 7 Rem Mag is over bore.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,585
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,585 |
According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, writing on Slate.com, it’s time for the Supreme Court – and, indeed, law students everywhere – to stop giving so much deference to that old, musty document known as the U.S. Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc. of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post-Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
The "eighteenth-century guys" who wrote the constitution knew that culture and technology would change, which is why they wrote it mainly about principles instead of specifics and why they provided a means to amend it. The argument that the constitution doesn't apply to the modern world because of technology changes has been specifically rebuked by SCOTUS: Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DC v Heller, 2008 [emphasis added] It's amazing that a Federal judge could be hypocritical enough that to take an oath to uphold the Constitution and then come out with a statement that it's irrelevant.
Last edited by natman; 07/01/16.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,312 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,312 Likes: 1 |
And replace it with "what"?
Culture and technology may change, but human nature remains unchanged and the acquisition of power (and use of same)by corrupt individuals and governments will continue unabated.
But the document and the foresight of the founders is all that prevents it, and stands above the fray.
To suggest that we should trust any portion of todays crop of fools with the ability to tamper with it, is ridiculous.
The judge is an idiot. Beer is on me.
NRA Life Member
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,913 Likes: 49
Campfire Sage
|
Campfire Sage
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 131,913 Likes: 49 |
It's views like this being common among the judiciary that have gotten us to the sorry state we're in as a nation. This attitude, even if not stated openly (even if just perceptible by their decisions) should be cause for immediate impeachment, followed by long prison terms.
|
|
|
|
574 members (16penny, 10ring1, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 63 invisible),
2,972
guests, and
1,257
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,754
Posts18,514,739
Members74,010
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|