Posted on 03/04/2008 6:53:13 PM PST by neverdem
Associated Press
The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will quickly release audio tapes after the March 18 argument over gun rights. The case from the District of Columbia could resolve whether the Constitution gives individuals the right to own guns and, if so, whether the government may still strictly regulate gun ownership, including a ban on handguns.
The immediate, same-day release of audio tapes following arguments in major cases started in the 2000 presidential election, when the justices decided appeals of the Florida recount controversy in favor of George W. Bush.
The court has twice this term provided same-day audio. It was made available in cases involving the rights of prisoners detained by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the method of execution by lethal injection.
The court records arguments and ordinarily releases them at the end of each term. With television cameras barred from the court and reporters prohibited from using tape recorders in the courtroom, the availability of audio provides the public with a chance to hear the justices at work.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, 07-290.
Since you are 1000% wrong in the first place, I will try to ignore the fact that you have told another lie. (Like THAT’S something new!) Especially since you have NOT provided any background to show that your “interpretation” is what they had in mind. And since you KNOW that the side which interprets the Second Amendment CORRECTLY has over a jillion quotes FROM THE FOUNDERS THEMSELVES which lend great credence to the fact that the Second Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, guaranteed but not granted by the constitution. And what government does not grant it cannot take away... not and be a legitimate government, anyway.
Oh... and under Federal law, the militia is all able-bodied males between 18-60 (IIRC) (and females of like ages who are part of the ORGANIZED militia). Which further shoots your theory in the ass.
I agree that the Founders talked a lot about the right to keep and bear arms. I also agree that they talked a lot about it being an individual right. We're on the same page.
Now, a jillion is a big number. Out of that jillion, please find for me one quote -- just one -- where a Founder said that the second amendment protects this individual right.
One out of a jillion. Shouldn't be difficult, right?
The militia today? Yes, you’re right. And non-whites are also included. And it’s not really a militia, is it?
FIRST, since you made the claim initially, post a source claiming that it involves ONLY and SOLELY members of the States’ militias. From the Founders. if you please.
And the federal law regarding militias... yes they ARE militia men and women and it really IS a militia, the UNORGANIZED militia. And it says ALL able bodied... been that way for over 100 years or so...
Absolutely wrong. The case could resolve whether the SC will allow the government to attempt to usurp that right, which is granted by God.
And that is precisely why the SCOTUS will rule in a close one so the political vagaries may be carried forward without becoming a defining issue in the upcoming elections ... can you imagine Osamabama or the Rodham rodent winning with gun-grabbing at the heart of their platform? Sadly, our SCOTUS has become a political animal.
As I said in my original post, the BATFE (aka the new SS) will just have to make examples of a few families with the media propgandizing the story as "routing out domestic terrorists". From that, there will be a good amount of people willing to turn in their guns. The rest will have the IRS to deal with e.g. frozen assets and bank accounts. The BATFE won't have to do much other than sit back and watch the guns roll in and do a few raids in the hills for us hold outs.
I don’t know; Ginsburg was a former counsel for the ACLU, right? As such, she would have agreed on the ACLU position paper on the 2nd, namely, that they consider it a “collective right” of the states to arm militias. I think she ought to recuse herself from this case.
And if the 2A is defined as an individual right then the grabbers will immediately switch to attemtped punative taxation to make guns available to the rich only.
WMD is where the line gets drawn .... back in the day we had private citizens with warships. If you can afford and crew them, own em.
SCOTUS is very aware that this is the most pivotal case in US history. I predict incorporation and a strong ruling in our favor with a 6-3 split.
I hope and pray that you are correct on this one.
Speaking of incorporation...
If you are talking about the Supreme Court's so-called selective incorporation of the BoR concerning the 14th A., I think that selective incorporation is not only meaningless, but also reflects that justices are ignoring the Constitution's history.
More specifically, it has been pointed out concerning the 2nd A. that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., read the first eight amendments when he gave examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states.
See the first eight amendments in the middle column of the following page from one of Bingham's discussions of the 14th A. in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional web.
http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4nSo given that Bingham referenced the first eight amendments when clarifying the scope and purpose of the 14th A., again, the USSC's so-called selective incorporation of the BoR doesn't mean anything. After all, Bingham had essentially pre-incorporated all the Constitution's privileges and immunities anyway.
Thoughts?
Four words in the Constitution make all gun laws unconstitutional: “shall not be infringed.” The number of gun laws on the books at both the federal and state level is a measure of just how much tyranny we live under. It is also a measure of the cowardice of the US citizenry. The fact that we have this discussion over and over again shows just how far this nation has departed from what the Founders had in mind and how weak are “the people”.
You must be putting sarcasm out there without the tag again. WTF did Bush have to do with this? I’m pretty sure his admin weighed in AGAINST the individual RTKBA.
No. Alito and Roberts.
“No. Alito and Roberts.”
The latter was not through any fault of George “Harriet’s my bud” Bush. The former showed his stripes in Carhart—as did Alito, I might add. Roberts also had a chance to sign on with Thomas in Gonzales v. Oregon and did not. I don’t have high hopes for those two, or for this case producing a positive outcome.
I never claimed I had a jillion quotes (or even one quote) from the Founders that the second amendment only protects the RKBA of individuals as part of a well regulated Militia. This is my opinion, my interpretation, of the second amendment based on a number of factors.
"yes they ARE militia men and women and it really IS a militia, the UNORGANIZED militia. And it says ALL able bodied... been that way for over 100 years or so..."
I agree. But they're not well regulated. Nor do they have officers appointed by the state. Therefore, this unorganized militia is not the militia referred to in the U.S. Constitution.
That's odd. I re-read Marbury v Madison and found no reference to a "Bingham". This landmark case established the concept of "judicial review" not "Bingham review" to determine the constitutionality of an action based on the court's interpretation of the document.
Sure, on the floor of the House, Binghan "claimed" the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States" were defined in the first eight amendments. And on the floor of the Senate, John McCain "claimed" that Campaign Finance Reform would not violate the first amendment. So?
As they did with CFR, the U.S. Supreme Court "corrected" Mr. Binham's assertions with their decision in The Slaughterhouse Cases a few years later where they defined the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States". And those privileges and immunities did NOT include the first eight amendments.
"After all, Bingham had essentially pre-incorporated all the Constitution's privileges and immunities anyway."
If so, it was the best kept secret in Washington, in that for the next 50 years Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court acted as though there was no incorpotation.
Would you also say, "Five words in the Constitution make all speech laws unconstitutional: “Congress shall make no law"? Laws against libel and slander, the publication of national secrets, incitement, copyright, and obscenity are all unconstitutional?
Forget about prior restraint -- speech is restricted as to when, where, and the manner in which something is said in addition to the content. And leave out the second amendment. Are you saying that a law against say, libel, is unconstitutional because the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make NO law ..."?
Her former representation of the ACLU arguably gives the appearance of impropriety should she argue for a collective right.
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.