Yup....they lose if they do that
Posted on 10/08/2015 2:15:49 PM PDT by rktman
In August, my colleague Charlie Cooke wrote an epic rant daring the Left to stop talking about repealing the Second Amendment and start doing it. Introduce the repeal to Congress, work it through the states, and tell the American people what you want to do — take from them a fundamental, enumerated right from the Bill of Rights. As Charlie eloquently outlines, repealing the Second Amendment is an impossible task. Even worse for the Left, it’s political suicide.
But if the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges teaches us anything, it’s that the age of judicial supremacy means that five justices can amend the Constitution far more efficiently than Congress and the state legislatures. And right now there are clearly four Supreme Court justices who are committed to the absurd view that the operative clause of the Second Amendment — “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” — doesn’t actually mean “the right of the people” and therefore doesn’t encompass an individual right to own a weapon, even for self-defense. This view defies history yet is received, conventional wisdom on the judicial Left, in much the same way that it’s received, conventional wisdom that the Constitution actually protects rights to abortion and gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I thought the same thing until they started finding all kinds of rights that weren’t listed or mentioned in the document.
If they do then President Trump will have at least 5 vacancies to fill.
It would be more than just political suicide. Of this I can assure you.
I suppose the question would then become, “Who’s the first target?”.
I wonder if they really, truly believe that people won’t fight back? Or, that whatever force they brought to bear would be enough to enforce their ruling.
What if they rely on ‘citizen informers’ to tell them where people’s firearms are?
The post-17th Amendment ratification Senate deserves most of the blame for activist justices imo. After all, corrupt senators not only confirm activist justices to the bench, but then refuse to work with the House to impeach and remove such justices from the bench when they make case decisions that blatantly ignore the Constitution, particularly 10th Amendment-protect state sovereignty.
In fact, presuming that the next president will be a non-RINO, Constitution-respecting conservative, please consider the following. Patriotic presidents have no constitutional authority to do anything about activist justices nominated by previous lawless presidents and confirmed by corrupt senators. So patriots need to try to elect a 2/3 non-RINO conservative Senate supermajority in the 2016 elections that would be willing to work with the House to remove activist justices from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the activist justices that they confirm along with it.
Uh, no. Much to their deep chagrin, even the SCOTUS doesn’t have that level of power.
However, once you remove God (RE the First Amendment), then the rest will be next. And guaranteed that there are discussions going on right now about how to go about repealing portions of the first amendment.
They won’t repeal it. They will simply uphold any number of anti-gun ownership laws passed at state or even local levels. The SC only needs to do nothing.
ROFL
As precedent, see the _Raich_ decision. They decided that a state legal activity could be violently suppressed because it decreased demand in illegal interstate commerce.
You are right.
God given, as in alienable.
These idiots on the Supreme Court cannot repeal an inalienable Constitutional right.
I’m sure there would be some grassing on their neighbors, but after the first few bodies start turning up in various places, the rest will learn the value of discretion. Not advocating it, perish the thought. Just making a historically backed observation.
The goal is not to gather up all the guns. It's to make criminals out of gun owners who refuse to comply.
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”---Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
If they change the Constitution, then states have the right to secede for breach of contract.
I believe the route will be to redefine “the right to bear arms” to refer to state militias instead of individuals bearing arms. I have heard libs spout that until the Supremes upheld that it did indeed mean the individual. But only 5 can rule differently. Then, it is an open door for states and the feds to go after the guns.
If Obama or a leftist Democrat president after him replaces one of the five justices who lean right with a leftist justice, the Second Amendment can be redefined in a way that we average citizens will be disarmed. The Amendment will still be in the list of 10, but gutted as to our natural rights.
That’s why every presidential election is critical.
Agreed.
They cannot officially change the Constitution but they can uphold gun control laws that blatantly violate it.
If the SCOTUS completely ignores the Constitution and uphold massive Federal confiscation of guns, I think civil war would be the result.
Yup....they lose if they do that
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.