Posted on 04/13/2021 6:14:19 AM PDT by TrumpianRepublican
Article I, Section 5 says that members will "be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same..." A fine is not an arrest.
Yes, I do recall her being criticized for exactly that quite a while back with some effort to get her held accountable that seemed to go nowhere. So I think that maybe he is defying the same order to make that point...however it seems that the double standard being highlighted is being missed by many.
“For instance, only Federal officers, like federal Marshalls, may carry a gun on an Airline, THAT is not seen by the SCOTUS of an abridgement of the “right to bear arms”. That right can be Constitutionally limited by context.”
That is what you wrote. Do you believe what you typed?
Actually, this hasn’t been “settled” by scotus.
Just because it’s been allowed doesn’t mean it isn’t unconstitutional.
The scotus in the few times they have taken up a II2 case have very carefully danced around the subject of the issue. They correctly realized that this is a touchstone, and if they overreach what the public will tolerate they risk unsettling the rocky balance of what is tolerated by the public. Their decisions are based on opinion and focus group styled bell weathering. It’s not based upon the constitution.
When they heard Hellier, they were careful to dance around the subject of restriction. If control of any kind is allowed, then there is no protection in the second. If that is not correct then ANY control isn’t allowed, and they didn’t want to admit that the pandora box that began over a century ago is unconstitutional. That admission would fly into the face of consensus.
It is a sad fact that there has not been enough honest and strong men on the scotus for so long that has been willing to protect the constitution and its amendments.
The genie is out of the bottle, and the idea that the scotus or anyone else would or even could is not likely possible without a reset of some kind.
I would never pay it.
It is probably just a way to keep the memory of the event alive, and to make it worse than the actual event. It also puts suspicion on those Trump-loving NRA type Republican House members
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.