$hit!
The Great One has spoken.
Wrong. Read Gorsuch’s opinion. It is spot on.
What’s this thread about?
I think this one was a good decision. Laws should not be ambiguous. Ambiguous laws drive me nuts.
Oh you mean Mark “who never questioned Obama’s birth cert” Levin.
I stopped listening to him 9 years ago.
Plus He was a never Trumper even after the convention..
Because a radio bloviator knows more than a SCOTUS justice?
I. Don’t. Think. So.
Remember Gorsuch is a textualist, like Scalia. If he agreed it was too vague, that’s good enough for me.
Now, rewrite the damn thing and implement a replacement law pronto!
Too much information overload in the title, article. and first post.
Can you condense it for quick reading by the rest of us?
If one of the Founders, himself chosen to interpret the Constitution to "the People," through his writings in THE FEDERALIST's 85 Essays, makes such a strong assertion about the nation's Constitution's supremacy, then isn't it reasonable that elected or appointed officials in the government it structures are not allowed to "innovate" upon appropriately-enacted laws flowing from its provisions?“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act.” – Alexander Hamilton
Has Comey found some new, and appropriately-passed Amendment?
In June 2016, Trump stated: "Yet today, 240 years after the Revolution, we have turned things completely upside-down." - Donald Trump
And it's not just about jobs and economic opportunity. It's about freedom, exercise of "Creator-endowed rights and liberties," and opportunity for each citizen, not just self-appointed elitists who fancy themselves as entitled to make decisions for all.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Roger Weightman on June 24, 1826:
" I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. all eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. the general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view. the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of god. These are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."Some time ago, I posted the following:
"Perhaps the so-called "progressive" enemies of freedom understand better than those who fancy themselves as "conservatives" that in order to reverse the Founders' ideas of "People over government," and institute "government over People," they must first marginalize and destroy the ideas from which liberty is derived.
The writings of America's Founders are replete with references which rebuke would-be tyrants and cite a Higher Source for life, liberty and rights. Early histories confirm those facts.
As so-called "progressives" have led a movement in forsaking the Founders' "reliance on Divine Providence," and belief that individuals are "endowed by their Creator," they also have forsaken the principles underlying America's Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and are systematically dismantling the greatest protections for liberty ever established for a people.
"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).
The ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.
We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.
Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."
There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.
Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.
This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.
Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.
In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.
Open closet. What did they find?
Gorsuch did not blow it, McConnell Ryan Obama Clinton, Comey, etc blew it! Dont forget monica too
IIUC, he agrees with the opinion that the law as written is too vague on what constitutes a violent crime. Now to me, it’s like indecency; I can’t really define it, but I know it when I see it. But to a legal mind distinctions like that matter, and criminals can get off scot-free because of them.
So, just rewrite the law to remove all doubt as to the nature of the crimes, and resubmit it. He’ll do his job again, as he did this time, and the deficiency will be corrected.
Its not a big deal. Gorsuch just said the law was too vague. Go back an rewite it in more derail.
". . . born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." ". . . a well regulated militia, . . "
Well, there goes anchor babies, and gun bans
No, vagueness in writing laws by Legislatures is one of the way the Activist Judiciary has squeezed so much of their wacko Leftist agenda into law.
This is a sound Conservative principal. It just happens to be applied against a hot button issue Conservatives favor.
Bad law is bad law even if we happen to agree with what it is trying to accomplish.
I am for the Constitution, not particular outcomes, even when it means I don’t get outcomes I want.
The worst part of all laws are vagueness and obscurity over transparency. They turn our nation of laws into a “nation of men” where too much law is subject to interpretation of who is enforcing it. The end result is actual selective enforcement of the law, because by some minds at some times, but not always, the law scoops up someone while at other times others, by someone’s interpretation get a pass.
Regardless of how I feel about illegal immigration, Gorsuch may be on our side, if it is the Constitution we stand by. Note his opinion seems to be in sync on opaque law as was Scalia in the case the majority took some precedent from.