Infringed?

[brickeyee]

When the Constitution (including amendments) means the states, it says states, when it means Congress, it says Congress, when it means people, it says people. When it means Congress and states, it doesn't say "Congress and states", it just says "RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE" "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Interesting interpretation.
Now all you need to do is get a court to agree.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Interesting interpretation.
Now all you need to do is get a court to agree.

Yinyangdc is half way there! He's got it right.

Woody

"Knowing the past, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future." B.E.Wood

 

[Frank Ettin]

...The nice thing about reading the Constitution is that one doesn't need to reference any other texts to understand it,...

...this clause already restricts the states to obey the constitution and all amendments. to many people focus on the amendments and not the original text.

....basically read as the judges(law) in the states shall be bound to obey the supreme law which "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" to the constitution, ...

so if the 2nd say we have a right to arms as the heller case said then the states have to obey also.

....it ...does not say "Congress shall make no law infringing on the RKBA", so by not limiting which entity is not able to infringe, it means NO entity can infringe....

If you were to ask me if I thought the Bill of Rights should apply to the states, the answer would be “yes.” But the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the early 19th century, so my opinion doesn’t matter in the real world. It wasn’t until the end of the 19th century, well after the 14th Amendment was adopted, that the Supreme Court started to apply the right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states in a piecemeal fashion. What the courts think the laws, including the Constitution, mean and how they apply trumps your opinion, and my opinion and the opinions of everyone else on the Internet.

What the courts think about these things trumps the rest of us, because their opinion on those matters can affect the lives and property, and rights and responsibilities, of real people in the real world. What you, I, or the rest of us here think about a law or the Constitution won’t put someone in jail, or set someone free, or cause someone to have to pay money, or give someone a right to collect money, etc. But what judges think can make those things happen.

If you, or I, or anyone else here posts that the Constitution means X or that the federal government can’t do Y under the Constitution, nothing happens in the real world. But if a judge says that in the course of a case in which that can be material to the outcome, something is actually going to happen to at least one of the parties in the case.

You may question what gives courts the authority to do such things. You may question by what right courts decide what the Constitution means and how it applies. And on one hand, such authority arguably flows from Article III of the Constitution. But on the other hand, whatever the source of that authority, it is real and gets exercised somewhere in the United States almost every day. So it you are convicted of violating a criminal statute which you contend is unconstitutional and sentenced to prison, and if after all appeals have been exhausted, none of the courts looking at the question have agreed with you, you will be taken to prison, by force if necessary. That will happen to you even if you continue to contend that the law is unconstitutional, and even if you dispute the authority of the court to disagree with your view.

And when judges decide about those things, they don’t pay attention to the sorts of off hand opinions that get posted on Internet boards like this. They aren’t paying attention to what we think. They have a process for reaching conclusions that has been in use for a very long time. It involves, among other things, relying on what other judges have decided before when dealing with questions similar to those raised by a current controversy.

The way judges go about reaching decisions is knowable. It’s possible to study past decisions and the processes by which cases are decided. Understanding such things permits one to (1) make some sense of what is going on; (2) anticipate what sorts of things might actually happen under various circumstances; (3) make some prediction about the legal consequences of various situations; (4) and deal with reality to his best advantage. Of course there are still uncertainties. But reasoned predictions based on knowledge and understanding will be correct more often than wild guesses.

 

[yinyangdc]

Unfortunately, in most of the decisions the Supremes make that go against the actual words of the constitution we can find that they did not actually use the actual words of the constitution. It's kind of like professional sports. The rules are there for anyone to read. People who don't care about the sport don't know the rules, fans know the rules mostly, the players and coaches should know them even better, and the officials should know them even better. That doesn't mean that the officials don't sometimes make mistakes.

Why are some Supreme Court justices known as being strict constructionists, or originalists, and others are not? It's because they follow the actual words of the constitution.

So, let's not confuse the decisions (constitutionally correct or not) that we have to live under based on the decisions of the "officials", and the actual words and meaning of the Constitution itself.

Please also notice that the decisions that go against the actual constitution (Kelo, Raich) also tend to violate the limited government philosophy. And if the government isn't to actually be limited, what's the use of the constitution in the first place?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Unfortunately, in most of the decisions the Supremes make that go against the actual words of the constitution...

[1] In your opinion.

[2] Those decisions still affect the real world, and your opinions do not. Those decisions will still affect future rulings affecting real people in real life. Your opinions do not.

...That doesn't mean that the officials don't sometimes make mistakes.

And that's why even the Supreme Court reverses itself from time to time.

... let's not confuse the decisions ... that we have to live under ... and the actual...meaning of the Constitution itself...

So you seem to contend that we live in the real world under rules as the Constitution is applied by the courts, but somewhere in Never-Never Land there's a Constitution that means something else but doesn't affect real life. Where does that get you?

 

[yinyangdc]

It gets me tilting at windmills to get more of the country to actually pay attention to the constitution. Without that fight we may as well go back to the days of slavery and serfdom, bowing down to our lords and masters.

 

[yinyangdc]

By the way, fiddletown, I am not the enemy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No David, you're not the enemy. But in my experience, not facing and understanding reality is counter productive.

...Without that fight we may as well go back to the days of slavery and serfdom, bowing down to our lords and masters.

I think you overstate the case. And there has been, and will continue to be, a fight. And it will take place in the courts and in the political arena. But in the courts, the fight will be conducted in the way things have been, and continue to be, done through legal process. And the political fight will be undertaken in accordance with the usages of the political process.

If we are to win (as I hope we do and think we should) in the courts, it will be because we have the help of wise and skillful lawyers who understand the law and legal processes. If we are to win in the political arena, it will be because we have the help of people who understand the world of politics and operate effectively in that world. But if we deny the reality of the courts and politics, we will not be effective and will be buried by those interests who can more adroitly "work the system."

 

[driftpin]

Quote from Teddy SCOTUS ruled in 1986??that the gov had a right to take over the NG.which was considered a state org. however in 1935?the NG was incorperated into the army as a reserve component.

This is a little bit outside of the discussion but with the National Guard in the hands of the government, where is the militia to defend us against a rogue government? Wasn't the formation of the NG in 1903 to form a militia to defend us against the above?

And with Gitlow vs. New York, what is considered the lawful removal of government.

I am saying that if we the people decide that we've had enough of all the litigatorscongress screwing up our country, slowly removing our rights and putting more legislation on everything we do, are we talking about a revolutionary war? and if so how could we take arms against a NG/military that is run by government that could stifle an up rising in less than a day.

 

[romma]

If I remeber correctly Kennedy tried to do this in the 70's and was shot down.

Okay, I am resisting making a bad joke right now...

 

[NonConformist]

This is a little bit outside of the discussion but with the National Guard in the hands of the government, where is the militia to defend us against a rogue government? Wasn't the formation of the NG in 1903 to form a militia to defend us against the above?

There is several components to the 'militia'

There is the organized Militia, or the NG. Which is a moot point since it is federally controlled, paid equiped and trained its just more muscle for them

Then there is the unorganized militia, which is all of us, this is all found in Federal Code