CIDKauf wrote:
To be deprived of "life, liberty,or property without due process of law".
..so this is to say that with due process of law, then one could be deprived of life, liberty, and property?
_____________________________________
-- A man decreed to be a felon [in a foreign court] can be deprived of his right to keep & bear arms, according to Scalia & Thomas..
Thomas dissents against RKBA's in Small v. US
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1392339/posts
Those of you here who are in awe of Scalia's "strict constructionism" need to realize that this dissent ignores our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
57 P_A_I
_____________________________________
You are correct CID. To interpret it any other way is to try to mould it to mean what they want it to say.
This is what Scalia was talking about. Scalia clearly meant that the constitution did not weigh in on the death penalty. Therefore it is the perview of the state or the people.
59 Texas Songwriter
______________________________________
The Constitution weighs in quite clearly on the RKBA's.
Thomas & Scalia ignored that fact, and 'moulded' their dissent for political effect.
With the test which you applied, that being the inability to keep and bear arms is rebuked if the person is convicted, were to be applied there could be no bill of attainder, nor fines, nor take property to satisfy any tort, or any other punishment which the constitution speaks to. This is the prescription for anarachy. Few on FR are advocates of this. Are you saying that any murderer should maintain the right to keep and bear arms after due process and conviction? Where are you going with your arguement. Everyone on FR agrees with due process. Everyone believes due process is the precursor to accountability.