Posted on 12/16/2010 10:07:01 PM PST by neverdem
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is an ideologue, a judicial activist who rules by his own political and personal philosophy, rather than the rule of law and what our founding fathers intended when they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights more than 200 years ago.
The left-leaning justice recently made remarks that further the suspicion that has been held for years - he doesn’t rule in regard to the Constitution, but rather a far-left political philosophy.
On Sunday, Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, said the founding fathers never intended guns to go unregulated.
Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court’s decision to overturn the Washington, D.C., handgun ban in 2008 case “D.C. v. Heller.”
Language in the Heller decision,however, acknowledged the constitutionality of some restrictions on guns.
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that founding father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution might not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
Mr. Breyer, you couldn’t be more wrong. Breyer even went on to ask: “What is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns, torpedoes? Handguns?”
There are limitations on the right to keep and bear arms just as their are limitations on freedom of speech and of the press, as well as other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Madison, along with other patriot founders of our nation had something very compelling reasons for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps Mr. Breyer should look at the murder rate in the nation’s capital - many were killed because of the handgun ban. The city of Chicago and several other large cities that ban handguns also see very high murder rates, many people would likely still be alive today if they had the right to possess a handgun in those cities, as the founders intended, to defend themselves.
Mr. Breyer seems to be engaged in an exercise of revisionist history.
It is unlikely that the former 13 colonies would have ratified the Constitution without the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment.
The 13 former colonies had recently secured their independence after a protracted and bloody struggle against British tyranny.
A laundry list of grievances against the British crown and Parliament as outlined in the Declaration of Independence is insightful.
Given a genuine concern that they might exchange one government that ran roughshod over their rights for another, the insistence on the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as a condition of ratification is hardly surprising.
Americans of that day were well aware of the important role of an armed citizenry at Lexington and Concord at the dawn of the revolution.
Moreover, Americans relied on their guns to protect their homes and settlements during the French and Indian wars.
During the revolution, settlers had to depend on their guns for protection against marauding bands of Indians incited by the British.
Perhaps Breyer should read the account of the siege of Fort Boonesborough in our own state of Kentucky.
But perhaps not, since Breyer seems more partial to history of the revisionist variety.
Priceless!
Perfect!
I’m not even sure about that. You have a lot of pro-gun historians, including Joyce Appelby, Stephen Halbrook, etc.
The single most important duty a president has is appointing judges.
>>When the Constitution was written, “well regulated” meant “well provisioned.”
Actually, the explanation below rings most true to me. From my FR profile page:
The term “regulated” applied to clocks means “accurate in keeping time”. It made sense, particularly in 18th Century armies, to have to pay a lot of attention to how well soldiers could operate in massed formations. Soldiers had to be drilled to load, aim, and fire as one unit. You do NOT want the rifle next to you to be firing (and emitting a shower of sparks) while you are pouring gunpowder into your musket. Everybody had to do every step together with no screwups.
Aw, come on! How can you say a thing like that with those three hotties on the court!
After making such public statements as these on the Second Amendment, should he not be forced to recuse himself from any cases involving that subject????
ping for later reading
Until the elected are reminded of this, we must keep our arms ready. We fought a revolution against a much less abusing government than we now have controlling us.
Wake up America an smell the gunpowder.
The Constitution really says, "The presence of a well-stocked militia being necessary to guarantee a free and prosperous people, the right of the people to keep and carry weapons shall not be infringed."
As long as it's a law abiding citizen, he can have chain-guns, rocket-propelled grenades, heat-seeking missiles, suitcase nukes, Abrahms Tanks, whatever he wants to own, maintain and use to stay safe and free.
Period. That's what the Constitution says.
8^D
One of our biggest mistakes is in thinking that the "other side" wants to play by the rules or will do things logically. They know that doesn't work for them. They don't feel shame like we do. They can justify/excuse damn near anything if it allows them to achieve their goals.
We should line both sides of the Capitol Mall with gallows to accommodate those of our ‘public servants’ who stand in violation of their oaths of office. Each and every one of them.
The only way to determine the intentions of the Founding Fathers is to read their published discourses and private letters. A great example is the Federalist papers, specifically Federalist #46. I make all my students in Advanced Placement American Government do an exhaustive research paper on these papers, especially #46!
I'd like this "Justice" to show me EXACTLY where in any of the Framers letters or articles this was provided for absent the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment, because to fall back on the "well regulated" verbiage is a tired ruse. "Well Regulated" is not a legal term of art, but rather one of military logistics for similar arms of similar calibers for the ease of resupply. Well Regulated might mean well disciplined as well in the sense of being good in the gentle art of war. But it certainly has nothing to do with government levels of gun control. This guy is clearly an idiot. It just proves that leftists, in a battle of wits with a conservative come to do battle, essentially unarmed.
I saw that interview with Breyer. What an arrogant idiot. Like he channels Madison. What part of “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed” does Breyer not understand? Just another progressive activist.
What is the scope of the right to bear arms? Everything and anything. From a .22 you can hang on a necklace to a howitzer in your back yard.
Impeach the treacherous bastard and remove him from office. That's what a real American Congress would do!
>>(I am a much younger and —most likely to him as all he probably sees is the unfortunate looking, dreary, depressive liberal women—attractive woman.)<<
And the rumor on FR is that you still have that cute wiggle when you walk. Care to confirm this rumor?
Ping.
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.