Posted on 06/26/2008 8:21:35 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In the First Amendment, no words define the class of individuals entitled to speak, to publish, or to worship; in that Amendment it is only the right peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, that is described as a right of “the people.” These rights contemplate collective action. While the right peaceably to assemble protects the individual rights of those persons participating in the assembly, its concern is with action engaged in by members of a group, rather than any single individual. Likewise, although the act of petitioning the Government is a right that can be exercised by individuals, it is primarily collective in nature. For if they are to be effective, petitions must involve groups of individuals acting in concert.
Similarly, the words “the people” in the Second Amendment refer back to the object announced in the Amendment’s preamble. They remind us that it is the collective action of individuals having a duty to serve in the militia that the text directly protects and, perhaps more importantly, that the ultimate purpose of the Amendment was to protect the States’ share of the divided sovereignty created by the Constitution.
As used in the Fourth Amendment, “the people” describes the class of persons protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by Government officials. It is true that the Fourth Amendment describes a right that need not be exercised in any collective sense. But that observation does not settle the meaning of the phrase “the people” when used in the Second Amendment. For, as we have seen, the phrase means something quite different in the Petition and Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment. Although the abstract definition of the phrase “the people” could carry the same meaning in the Second Amendment as in the Fourth Amendment, the preamble of the Second Amendment suggests that the uses of the phrase in the First and Second Amendments are the same in referring to a collective activity. By way of contrast, the Fourth Amendment describes a right against governmental interference rather than an affirmative right to engage in protected conduct, and so refers to a right to protect a purely individual interest. As used in the Second Amendment, the words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well regulated militia.
It took 32 years to overturn.
Ugh.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
The linguistic contortion they go through never ceases to amaze me.
Sorry, J.P.........5-4...Settled Law...Just like Roe v Wade.
Not soon enough is the answer.
Nope. And Scalia just DESTROYS him and Breyer in the majority opinion. It’s pretty much the judicial equivalent of Cassius Clay standing over a knocked-out Sonny Liston, fist cocked.
}:-)4
Oh, Stevens isn’t dumb,
this is just an example of knowing what the meaning is, disagreeing with it,
and attempting to justify it with some contortion of logic.
He, after all, being a liberal, is wiser than the founders, wiser than anyone that ever lived, and wiser than God Himself (liberals reject biblical authority).
He has the right and obligation to impose this wisdom on the rest of us.
It's no wonder that Stevens hands down some of the most ultra-liberal comments, especially in the past 20 years!
“Collective rights” are all that’s guaranteed by the Constitution?
The Soviet Constitution “guaranteed” more rights to its citizens than ours. However, it was interpreted that those rights took second place against the “needs” of the “people,” meaning the State.
Based on that interpretation, the Soviet constitution’s “guarantees” were meaningless. We all saw how “collective rights” worked there, with millions dispatched to the Gulag.
Stevens is an out-and-out Soviet communist.
“Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?” Agree, but again, what liberal is?
Justice Stephens: There you go again, twisting them words around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
I have always believed that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. It was written so that ANY citizen/individual could understand it.
Their verbal contortions appall me.
Unless they are unborn, or 8 year olds that are raped.
When Rat Presidents appoint SCOTUS justices we all know what we're getting -- there are no surprises. But with GOP Presidents it's always a crapshoot. Some great (Scalia, Thomas), some disastrous (Souter, Stevens).
How any conlusion, other than unfettered rights of individuals being enumerated, can be reached is just amazing. And I am not a beknighted lawyer or lord soveriegn of the bench either.
The "progressives" will have a tizzy fit over this decision. This dissent by Stevens has long been their position. As on so many other issues, the court is finely balanced and the ability to appoint justices is exceptionally important. Obama's court appointments would be a disaster. At the very least, he could maintain the liberal contingent, at the worst, he could flip the court to a sure liberal bias.
senile
Obviously, Justice Stevens is not familiar with the first word of Amendment I - "Congress". The only right guaranteed to the people by Amendment I is protection from Congress. It is sad that Justice Stevens has been on the USSC for over a quarter century, yet still doesn't even understand the Bill of Rights.
btw, the argument that Stevens uses (i.e. the right to bear arms is extended to militias - not the people) is preposterous. Consider the converse where militias did not have the right to bear arms. It doesn't make sense.
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.