Posted on 10/02/2006 12:46:10 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
The other outcome of that Supreme Court decision was that a "militia" was defined using language that suggested that it was really a national guard arm of the military, instead of the peoples' militia it was intended to be. This one small group of unelected judges single handedly overturned years worth of 2nd Amendment Supreme Court precedents, all to put one lousy criminal behind bars. Ever since that decision, gun-grabbers have used it to transfer the people's power to the government. During the time period of that decision, nobody seriously thought that the 2nd Amendment referred to a government militia, and the decision was never thought to seriously overturn previous precedents. Just like the contraceptive ruling though, it put a crack in the Constitution that the enemies of freedom have been able to exploit ever since.
Future FReepers may be referring to the eminent domain ruling in a similar way we refer to the rulings above. The right to own property may someday be regulated by the government due to exploiting that unconstitutional ruling. Hindsight has made us smarter now then we were then, but we still can't seem to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
In U.S. v. Miller, the federal government won the chance to bring Miller/Layton to trial. Had they in fact used that opportunity to do so, the question of whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for use in a militia could have been put to the jury. For some reason, however, the federal government decided it didn't want to put that matter before a jury (it could have done so in Layton's case). Indeed, I can think of no other instance where the federal government has gone to the Supreme Court seeking authority to prosecute someone, and then offered a plea bargain, for 'time served', immediately after winning.
I think that's a disingenuous mischaracterization. I think it's more like saying the author is the most authoritative source to determine the specific meanings of the words used.
Pure textualism disregards the historical context and intent of the authors. Without this, any of the possible meanings can be attributed to any of the words, and interpretation becomes a game of searching for a particular combinatation of meanings that will produce a desired result.
Make no doubt about it that I am a very strong advocate for the 2nd Amendment but assertions like this support the liberal. What if I am your neighbor and I am distilling saran gas, breeding a biological disease, growing anthrax or building a suitcase atomic bomb? One might argue that I am within my right until I use this weapon (arms) but where is your act of redress after I use such weapons?
I have read the Federalist papers and noted several references of the colonialists being free of the not shackled to the yoke of tyranny due to their personal arms. The thinking behind the 2nd Amendment is lucidly clear and had nothing to do with hunting bear, target practice, shooting burglars or even plugging someone found in your bed with your wife. The 2nd Amendment is there to permit the people to defend and overthrow the greatest potential danger on the planet, then and now - a government.
Now imagine you are one of the founders and are trying to come up with a "bill of rights". You have just written a constitution and created a country. There is already a lot of doubt about the survivability of this new republic. Don't you think that adding an Amendment that states, "If this government becomes tyrannical, the people will always be armed and are obliged to rise up and overthrow such government" would be expressing tremendous doubt in an intentionally wobbly three-legged institution?
"What if I am your neighbor and I am distilling saran gas, breeding a biological disease, growing anthrax or building a suitcase atomic bomb?"
You would have to be extremely wealthy, and your house would have to be a high-tech fully equipped laboratory, in order for you to build even just one of these weapons. If you do have such resources, no law is going to stop you from building such a weapon anyway.
"One might argue that I am within my right until I use this weapon (arms) but where is your act of redress after I use such weapons?"
After you use your weapon on him, he will be dead, just as if you shot him. You can't kill everybody though, so there will be somebody left to arrest you.
"Pure textualism disregards the historical context and intent of the authors. Without this, any of the possible meanings can be attributed to any of the words, and interpretation becomes a game of searching for a particular combinatation of meanings that will produce a desired result."
This is exactly right and 100% correct. Lawyers make a job of finding the way to twist word meanings until the outcome desired by their client is produced. We as the jury need to be able to understand the spirit behind the law, for words alone can mean anything.
Just think about how much the meaning of the word militia has changed in the last 200 years. If Webster's wanted to destroy the 2nd Amendment, all they would have to do is put in the dictionary: Militia- A government run group of armed men.
Words change, meanings change; some words or definitions aren't even used anymore. With a "pure textualism" approach we will be under the authority of unelected language professors and the changing whim of a living language.
How do you fell about taking out Iran's nuclear capability before they have a chance to use them?
"How do you fell about taking out Iran's nuclear capability before they have a chance to use them?"
Iran is not to be confused with a law abiding American citizen who is exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Iran is a part of the Nation of Islam, our mortal enemy.
Whether they have nuclear arms or not, they are a threat and need to be broken, just as Iraq and Afghanistan needed to be. Iran has said what they will do with their bomb, and it isn't self defense. They plan to destroy Israel who is not just our ally, but our holy land as well.
How in the world did you get the idea that I am a liberal? Furthermore, what are you so mad about?
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.