This article, and subsequent posts are about, I believe, a federal judge overstepping in reguards to the Second Ammendment. I concur. And this is my point.........I do not believe the U.S. Constitution gives federal judges the right to decide law, (or, in other words, what a judge thinks the law should be).....I firmly believe that that right is specifically and clearly placed in the hands of Congress and the people.
When the constitution was being formed, there was plenty of conflict....some for slavery, some against....some for more states rights, some not....some for a stronger federal court, and those against.....etc., etc., etc. It got so bad, that Ben Franklin suggested that prayers should be offered regularly, and if I understand correctly, they were.
Now, Madison had his views, and many excellant ones, about what the constitution really meant before and after they finished writing it in September of 1787. And there were those who opposed Madison's views, with strong argument........and so on with other framers and other issues......there was much debate about areas that would eventually become the 9th Ammendment, also. George Mason walked out and didn't return.
We needed the constitution finished, it had to be finished. Notwithstanding slavery and individual rights, and a host of other issues, it was finished, (a work, I believe, that is the greatest government document ever written by the hands of men), and later ratified, leaving it up to future congresses to work out the details, the laws, the rights and powers. (I am sure, Technogeeb, that you have a very good knowledge of the history of the constitution, but there are some who read these posts that do not.)
Let me put it this way, if you bought a new car, and signed a contract of sale......it is not what the salesman told you as to what the contract really means that counts, not what the clerk told you that the contract says, not even what the owner of the dealership tells you about what the contract really means, (and, they could all be right or wrong in their advice)........very plainly, it is the very words in the contract, (the "law"), that really matters if you you find yourself in financial or legal difficulties.
I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal courts the right to create laws....also, I have yet to find anything that leads me to believe that the federal courts are supposed to be a check on the congress. The presidental veto, the voices of the people, and their votes are a check on the congress. In addition, the two house check each other, and even check themselves.
I firmly believe that it is the job of a congress, elected by the people, under a guaranteed republican form of government, to "make all laws". Therefore, I believe that it is the job of a congress to decide what the laws are in respect to the 9th, not some recent graduate of law school, through the supreme he or she happens to be "clerking" for. Now the key word in the 9th, I believe, is the word "retained". Retained not only means "in reserve", but also things "already listed". It is up to the congress to make the laws in respect to this ammendment, the Ninth Ammendment.
We have seen from years past, what the federal courts have done to darn near gut the constitution. Today, it only takes 5 unelected judges, contrary to a republican form of government, to, at times, actually "make the laws of this land". Even lower courts have been getting into the action, as this article on the Second Ammendment points out.
Marbury vs Madison was terribly flawed, and the supremes have been wrong about a host of other issues and laws....slavery....abortion, sodomy....education....free speech, and yes.....the Second Ammendment.
More guns mean less crime.
More conservatives make a better congress.
A better congress makes for a better America, except for those who want to break laws, spread disease, ruin the lives of children, and overthrow this government.....have I left anybody out?
I can find nothing in the constitution that gives the federal courts the right to create laws....
Of course not; let me make it clear that I do not advocate the current trend of "creating new rights from whole cloth" that many judges seem to practice, since most of those so-called rights are nothing of the sort. But that being said, the text of the 9th amendment remains very clear in that just because a right is not enumerated does not mean that such a right does not exist.
very plainly, it is the very words in the contract, (the "law"), that really matters if you you find yourself in financial or legal difficulties.
On that point I do not disagree, but the problem is that the text of the Constitution is very clear; in every case I have seen of people misunderstanding the document, it has been because of an inability to comprehend the English language (for example, those that try to assign "rights" to government instead of "the people" in the 2nd amendment, or those like FDR who take the "necessary and proper" phrase as a blank check when it explicitly only applies to the previously enumerated powers).
I firmly believe that it is the job of a congress, elected by the people, under a guaranteed republican form of government, to "make all laws". Therefore, I believe that it is the job of a congress to decide what the laws are in respect to the 9th
The problem here is that our federal government is NOT granted the power to "make all laws"; but only those that are necessary and proper to carry out the specific powers that are explicitly delegated to it. Even if that were not implicitly spelled out in the body of the Constitution itself (which it is, even though perversions of English and a general ignorance of the actual text of the document have allowed government to ignore that limitation), the 10th amendment (dealing with powers, not reserved rights as in the 9th amendment) makes the point in language that simply cannot be misinterpreted except by someone who either has questionable mental faculties (insert many Democrat and, unfortunately, many Republican politicians here) or who is engaged in deliberate deception (the vast majority of the remainder of those politicians previously mentioned).
Now the key word in the 9th, I believe, is the word "retained". Retained not only means "in reserve", but also things "already listed".
No it doesn't. "Retained" means to hold secure or intact, to keep (a person) in one's pay or in one's service, or to keep in one's possession. In the text of the 9th amendment, it is quite clear what is meant. The text of the amendment is about rights (not powers like the 10th), and the use of the word "retained" is to modify "others", which is specifically "other" rights other than those enumerated (1st, 2nd, etc.). The authors intended a clear statement to the effect that just because a right wasn't enumerated didn't mean the right didn't exist or wasn't protected; the people retained those other rights as well.
We have seen from years past, what the federal courts have done to darn near gut the constitution
This is certainly true, but it is no less true that the Congress has done a terrible job at conforming to the limitations imposed upon it by the Constitution. Similarly, the Presidents (including, sadly, our current one) have shown that they are more than willing to ignore the text; doing not only what the Constitution does not allow, but even going so far as to do such things that it specifically forbids ("CFR", for example).
In any case, I suspect we share a similar, if not common, view of the problems currently plaguing our current government. My initial reply should not be construed to suggest that I am opposed to your position, just the particulars by which you were advocating that position (specifically, the suggestion that the 9th amendment, a clause intended to secure individual rights not explicitly enumerated from the potentially tyrannical hand of government, could actually grant that government any actual power beyond securing those non-enumerated rights).