>>Really, then what is the point of the Tenth Amendment, which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” ?
>
>”The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
>
>So the job of interpreting the Federal Constitution has been specifically delegated to the Supreme Court, not you.
It says the JUDICIAL power, not LEGISLATIVE; therefore, the Supreme Court cannot legitimately make law out of whole cloth, as it did in Roe v. Wade, OR [re]-interpret the Constitution to mean something other-than-written, such as what gun-control it has allowed. {If the Second Amendment was applied as-written then the ONLY legitimate ‘gun-control’ laws the federal [or state, or county, or municipality]* could enact would be: a) mandating that a Citizen have arms; and b) mandating that arm’s basic/general properties. i.e. “All Citizens must possess a .45 ACP handgun and/or a .50 rifle.”}
*The Second Amendment is written in the Passive Voice wherein it is the action, not some actor, which is the subject; because the second amendment uses the passive-voice when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the “who” that might do it is irrelevant and therefore ALL levels of government that are bound by the Constitution are bound thereunto. (Therefore, because the Constitution can prohibit laws at least at the state level “No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...]”
Nor can the Supreme Court REDEFINE the language in which the Constitution was written: Common English.
Let me reiterate, the Constitution was written in plain English, not some mystic Legalese English which we must have continually interpreted and expounded upon by the intercessions of the High Priests of the Judiciary for us to the high-gods that are the Supreme Court. [That last sentence should be read with ever-increasing sarcasm.]
If my interpretations of the Constitution are wholly invalid then my assertion that Dred Scot was a bad decision would be not only null and void but continually unsupportable in the legal realm; however, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it was in error and reversed that decision. Now, consider this carefully, if the Supreme Court had not rescinded the Dred Scot Decision then would my [original] assertion that it was wrong be invalid?
No! It would be unsupported in law, true; but it would not be invalid SOLELY BECAUSE it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion up-to-this-date.
>>Can you find me ten Citizens off the street in 48 hours who will agree that “someone barging into their house unannounced at 4 AM” is ‘reasonable,’
>
>Straw man. No one is talking about random people walking into your house unannounced.
Actually YOU did, in one of your posts; specifically, the fourth paragraph of post 107. The fifth sentence.
Further along in that same post [para 18, sentence2] “For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”
There it is, the subject of UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. And you, through quoting Justice Thomas, brought it up.
>Let’s try another one. Suppose a terrorist is holding hostages and will kill them if any attempt is made to knock and announce. Should the police officers have to first knock and announce and present a warrant in order to make a dynamic entry and rescue said hostages?
And here you are jumping straight into “exigent circumstances” which is not the subject of this thread except insofar as the courts have accepted that MERE ALLEGATIONS of drugs [which was the reason for the SWAT team’s arival, no?] are ‘exigent’ enough.
>For the purposes of this question, assume that the officers possess a valid warrant supported with probable cause to arrest the terrorist.
The Officers, being hyped-up and dyslexic, enter the wrong house and kill Uncle Fred who was minding his own damn business cleaning his guns after a day of shooting. Would Fred be justified in taking aim at the police? Would he be justified in killing them?
The Court isn't making up law whole-cloth when it interprets the word "Unreasonable", it's applying the text of the Constitution and performing the functions that were delegated to it by the Constitution.
The Second Amendment is written in the Passive Voice wherein it is the action, not some actor, which is the subject; because the second amendment uses the passive-voice when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the “who” that might do it is irrelevant and therefore ALL levels of government that are bound by the Constitution are bound thereunto. (Therefore, because the Constitution can prohibit laws at least at the state level “No State shall [...] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts [...]”
Nor can the Supreme Court REDEFINE the language in which the Constitution was written: Common English. Let me reiterate, the Constitution was written in plain English, not some mystic Legalese English which we must have continually interpreted and expounded upon by the intercessions of the High Priests of the Judiciary for us to the high-gods that are the Supreme Court. [That last sentence should be read with ever-increasing sarcasm.]
LOL! In "Common English" the word "unreasonable" needs interpretation, for what might be reasonable to one might not be reasonable to another. Thus, it is the job of the COURT to define the term, not you.
If my interpretations of the Constitution are wholly invalid then my assertion that Dred Scot was a bad decision would be not only null and void but continually unsupportable in the legal realm; however, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that it was in error and reversed that decision. Now, consider this carefully, if the Supreme Court had not rescinded the Dred Scot Decision then would my [original] assertion that it was wrong be invalid? No! It would be unsupported in law, true; but it would not be invalid SOLELY BECAUSE it was contrary to the Supreme Court’s opinion up-to-this-date.
You are rambling now. Dred Scott was the law of the land until it was abrogated by a Constitutional Amendment.
Actually YOU did, in one of your posts; specifically, the fourth paragraph of post 107. The fifth sentence. Further along in that same post [para 18, sentence2] “For now, we leave to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” There it is, the subject of UNANNOUNCED ENTRY. And you, through quoting Justice Thomas, brought it up.
Except neither me, or Justice Thomas was talking about random people walking into a house unannounced. The case was about a police officer, with a valid warrant, who happened to execute that warrant without knocking and announcing. That's different than your "man on the street" question.
And here you are jumping straight into “exigent circumstances” which is not the subject of this thread except insofar as the courts have accepted that MERE ALLEGATIONS of drugs [which was the reason for the SWAT team’s arival, no?] are ‘exigent’ enough.
Wrong again. Not mere allegations, but allegations supported by probable cause. You know, the standard that the CONSTITUTION sets.
The Officers, being hyped-up and dyslexic, enter the wrong house and kill Uncle Fred who was minding his own damn business cleaning his guns after a day of shooting. Would Fred be justified in taking aim at the police? Would he be justified in killing them?
It depends.