Replies

“Is every law that you disagree with not “duly enacted…you are sometimes in agreement with the right and duty of the courts to do so, so long as you agree with the outcome.”

Despicable. It is absolutely despicable that a person should engage in that sort of behavior on Free Republic. Even loathsome leftist degenerates who use that ploy understand that it is entirely without merit. Leftists do it, of course, to slander and deny their target the opportunity to present his arguments. Why are you doing it?

Any intelligent, honest, sane person would look first for legitimate reasons that another intelligent, honest, sane person might agree with one case and not the other, before accusing the other fellow of slack-jawed stupidity, bigotry, inconsistency, and just general, all-around great-googly-mooglyism, which is the clear, undeniable implication of your remarks, quoted above.

Or perhaps it is that you cannot imagine that a lower court, much less the Supreme Court, could be wrong, or—dare I say it—dishonest?

Wrack my brain as I might, I cannot come up with any reasons, other than those two, that you might say a thing like that. So, which is it—a slanderous gambit intended to put me on the defensive and keep the discussion away from the actual issues, or an indication that you cannot imagine that a court could be wrong or dishonest?

“And by the way, the question before the Court in the Chicago handgun case was not whether the Second amendment was null and void”

Is it that you didn’t understand a word I said, or that you are trying to irritate?

“but whether its protections should be extended to the states through the mechanism of the 14th Amendment, because the Supreme Court has always found that the original intent of the Founders was that the Bill of Rights only applied to the actions of the federal government.”

The Bill of Rights is not the source of the rights enumerated therein. Those rights come from God, and whether the Bill of Rights applies to the states or not, God does. A law that violates the rights that are our birthright as children of God is invalid before a far higher court than any constituted by man, which means that it is without force. “Lex mala, lex nulla,” as Aquinas said.

You cannot find a single Founding Father who did not agree with that, and who did not put his life, his property, and his sacred honor on the line to make it a reality.

As this has been true for as long as there have been human beings, it was true even before the 14th Amendment, which only served to make a portion of that truth explicit: “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Does a law that denies citizens their God-given right to self-defense abridge their privileges or immunities? You bet your bippy it does, scooter.

Does a law that forbids people to kill pre-born babies abridge their privileges or immunities? If you think it does, you’re on the wrong site.

Therefore, the one law is not constitutional and should be struck down, while the second is constitutional, and a judge or justice betrays humanity and the United States when she strikes it down.

Of course, if you don’t want to deal with such arguments, you can continue to assert the lie that I only agree with the courts “when (I) support the outcome.”